Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935 (ORDERS).

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (CAPTAIN HOPE) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as followeth:—

I have received your Addresses praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Supplementary Order, 1937, the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1937, the Government of India (Federal Court) Order, 1937, and the Government of Burma (Adaptation of Laws) Supplementary Order, 1937, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

MEMBER SWORN.

A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Aberystwyth Rural District Council Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Bath Corporation Bill [Lords],

Poole Corporation Bill [Lords],

Taunton Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Liverpool United Hospital Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered: Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

Aberdeen Corporation (Water Gas Electricity and Transport) Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Elgin and Lossiemouth Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ferguson Bequest Fund Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women Glasgow Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

COLONIAL STOCK ACTS, 1877 TO 1934.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I beg to move:
That a Copy be presented of Treasury List of Stocks in respect of which the provisions of the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, are for the time being complied with

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether this Motion is open to discussion; and if not, by what method can the House oppose it? Can it go through without the acquiescence of the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is not open to discussion now.

Mr. Garro Jones: Then I object.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that the number of able-bodied persons in receipt of relief taken over by the Unemployment Assistance Board on the second appointed day from the area covered by the city of Stoke-on-Trent has fallen far short of expectations of the city


council; and what action does he propose to take;
(2) whether he has now given further consideration to the resolutions passed at the conference of distressed areas held in London on 11th June; and, if so, what action has been taken or is contemplated to be taken;
(3) whether he is aware of the burden remaining on a small number of large industrial cities and county areas following the restricted interpretations placed upon Section 36 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934; whether he is aware that in the area of the city of Stoke-on-Trent out of 218 applications made to the Unemployment Assistance Board only 83 persons have been granted an allowance, leaving 135 persons who still have to continue to receive assistance from the local rate fund; and what action does he propose to take?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As I stated in my reply yesterday to questions by the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) I received a deputation on Tuesday last representing certain local authorities regarding the interpretation of Section 36 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934. These representations are receiving my consideration.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive another deputation similar to that which he received the other day before the Adjournment?

Mr. Brown: No, I think not. I received a large number of facts and figures, and I have to verify them, and it will possibly take more than a week to do so.

6. Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to give any further information as to the number of new and reassessed cases due to receive from the Unemployment Assistance Board more than the corresponding rate of employment benefit, and the number due to receive not more than the corresponding rate of employment benefit?

Mr. Brown: As I explained to the hon. Member on a previous occasion, this information is not available.

Mr. White: Will any information on this matter be included in the report of the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Brown: I do not think it could be. It would be bringing in a formula which is not appropriate.

Mr. Lawson: How is it that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the House this information though he can give such information sometimes when it is information which makes his own followers cheer?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I have been asked about the relation between one set of figures and another in regard to rates of benefit, and I am saying that that was the old method of calculation before the new Act.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of single men and women who have received reductions since the operation of the new Unemployment Assistance Board scales; and the total amount of reduction in Glasgow?

Mr. Brown: I regret that separate figures in respect of reductions in the allowances of single men and women and information regarding the total amount of reductions is not available. In the Board's administrative district of Glasgow I, there were 311 persons who were receiving on 25th June last less than they would have received under the Standstill arrangements and otherwise than on account of the applicant's personal earnings.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that reports have been circulated in Glasgow to the effect that many unemployed people there are suffering reductions under these new scales of from 2s. to 7s. per week; is he aware that these reductions are increasing weekly; and is he further aware that these reductions and the decline of purchasing power create more unemployment in the city?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member puts to me a rumour. If he has any facts, I shall be glad to look at them. My information is twofold—first, that there have been under review 9,600 increases and 311 decreases.

Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that there are people in Glasgow under these new scales receiving reductions of from 2s. to 7s. per week?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member must put a question of details like than on the Paper. He has asked me for some figures, and I have given them.

Mr. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman said that I was repeating a rumour. Does he deny the statement that is circulated that these people are suffering from 2s. to 7s. per week reductions in Glasgow?

Mr. Brown: I could not be expected to answer such a question by way of supplementary question and answer across the Floor, but if the hon. Member will put a question down in form, I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that it was impossible to give the figures asked for in the question?

Mr. Brown: I said that the information asked for in the first part of the question was not available.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to supply the information?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure that I can, but I will gladly do what I can.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour the aggregate amount by which unemployment scale rates have had to be increased in order to make rent adjustments, from the inception of the Unemployment Assistance Board and during the last convenient 12 months; and what has been the average increase in scale rates per applicant during the whole period?

Mr. Brown: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available and cannot be obtained without undue labour.

APPEALS.

Mr. White: asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases at present awaiting decision by the Umpire and the numbers which have been waiting a decision for more than one month or two months, respectively?

Mr. E. Brown: The number of cases awaiting decision by the Umpire at 17th July, 1937, was 309. Of these, 36 had been awaiting decision for more than one month, and two for more than two months respectively.

COURT OF REFEREES, GREENOCK.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has investigated the case reported to him regarding a chairman of a court of referees in Greenock who was alleged to be using the influence of his position to prevent an appeal to the Umpire by a claimant against a majority decision of his court; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that the hon. Member was not in his seat last Thursday to put his original question. I have since received a communication from him which I am investigating.

Mr. Gibson: If I give the right hon. Gentleman certain particulars will he consider them?

Mr. Brown: I shall be very glad to have them. I have no information at all as a foundation for the original statement.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the Minister finds that this statement is accurate, will he see that this chairman is removed from the court of referees?

Mr. Brown: I shall not prejudge anything. I must wait until I get the evidence.

Mr. Kirkwood: But if the Minister then finds that the statement is correct, will he have this chairman removed?

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour how many trainees are at present undergoing training at the various training centres; and whether there are any vacancies at these centres at present unfilled?

Mr. E. Brown: The number of persons undergoing training at the various training centres on 15th July, 1937, was as follows:


Government training centres
4,367


Instructional centres (including summer camps)
4,821


Domestic training centres
777


The instructional centres are practically full, but there are a number of vacancies in the training centres which I should be glad to see filled.

Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that is being made at these centres?

Mr. Brown: With the actual progress of the work, yes, but I should, of course, be glad to see many more applications for the training centres.

Mr. Buchanan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in some way the training centres are not yet up to the standard required to induce people to go there?

Mr. Brown: I would not say that of the Government training centres. I think they are absolutely first-class for the work.

Brigadier-General Makins: asked the Minister of Labour how many vocational training centres are under his control; how many unemployed these centres are capable of training at a time; how many they are now training; and how many ex-soldiers are included in these numbers?

Mr. Brown: My Department has 13 training centres, with training places equipped for 6,477 men. On 15th July, 4,367 men were in training. The number of ex-soldiers included is not immediately available, but I will ascertain it and communicate with the hon. Member. At the centre at Southampton opened last month specially for ex-soldiers there are 58 ex-soldiers in training.

Mr. White: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement with regard to the progress made by the Unemployment Assistance Board in carrying out Section 37 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, and, in particular, the number of training courses provided and the number who have attended them?

Mr. Brown: The Board's general policy in the exercise of its functions under this Section has been to rely mainly on the training courses conducted or grant-aided by my Department with which the Board keep in close contact, both as regards the general organisation of the centres and the selection of persons to attend them. All these courses are available, not only to the applicants who were under the Board before the second appointed day, but also to those transferred on that day from the local authorities. In addition, the Board has recently made arrangements with the Central Association for Young Wayfarers' Hostels, for the training of young unemployed men who are in danger of becoming casual vagrants.

Other special schemes are under consideration.

Mr. White: Are we to understand that the Board no longer intend to pursue the policy entrusted to them under this Section of the Act?

Mr. Brown: I would not say that. The hon. Member will understand that the position with regard to the opportunities of employment for men is very different now from what it was when the Act was passed, and it would, of course, be a work of supererogation to set up new training centres if the old centres are not full. The Board in this matter works in the closest co-operation with the Ministry.

STATISTICS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour if he can state how many people are unemployed outside those that are recorded by the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir; but I have no reason to suppose that the number is at all considerable.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that millions of people are not entitled to become insured, and would he be surprised to know that between 500,000 and 700,000 of them are out of employment?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asked me for the information which we have and which we can verify, and I have told him I have no reason to suppose that the number is at all considerable.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to go into the Library and get all the information that is to be found about this matter in the books there?

Mr. Brown: Not all the information that is in books is necessarily accurate.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unregistered unemployed in Scotland have considerably increased during the past two years?

Mr. Brown: I know that there has been a great decrease in unemployment in Scotland.

TRANSFEREES.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour the number of young people who


were transferred from Special Areas in 1936, and the number up to the latest date for this year?

Mr. E. Brown: I will, if I may, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures for 1936 are three times those for 1933 and that the numbers are increasing, and will he say that that is a sign of prosperity from the point of view of the Special Areas?

Mr. Brown: I could not give the total for 1933 without reference, but there was a large increase. The table for which the hon. Member has asked will show that the second part of his suggestion does not seem to be borne out. There does not appear to be any increase in the last six months.

Mr. Lawson: Is the figure less this year than it was last year?

Mr. Brown: On the last six months, if we can take that as an average, the actual total for 1936 was 10,400 and for the six months 5,044.

Year.
Men.
Women.
Boys.
Girls.
Total.


1936
6,199
2,861
3,345
1,766
14,171


1937 (5 months)
2,930
1,178
1,216
864
6,188



9,129
4,039
4,561
2,630
20,359

ASSISTANCE BOARD (REPORT).

Mr. Dingle Foot: asked the Minister of Labour when the report of the Unemployment Assistance Board for 1936 is to be published; and whether the House of Commons will be given an opportunity of discussing this report before the end of the present Session?

Mr. E. Brown: I am informed that I may expect to receive this report before the end of this week, and I hope that it may be possible for copies to be made available in the Vote Office on Monday next. The second part of the question is a matter which does not rest with me.

Mr. Foot: Was it not understood at the time that the Unemployment Bill of 1934 was passing through this House that we

Following is the table:

The numbers of young people between the ages of 14–18 transferred from the Special Areas during 1936 and the six months ended June, 1937, are set out in the following table:


Year
Boys
Girls.
Total.


1936
6,047
4,405
10,452


1937 (6 months)
2,616
2,428
5,044



8,663
6,833
15,496

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour the number of young people up to the age of 21 years transferred from South Wales and Monmouthshire during 1936 and to the most recent date for the current year?

Mr. E. Brown: I will, if I may, circulate a table giving the available figures.

Following is the table:

Figures are not available showing separately transfers of young people up to the age of 21 years but the following table shows the number of boys and girls aged 14 to 18 and the number of men and women over 18 transferred by the Department from South Wales and Monmouthshire during 1936, and the five months ending May, 1937:

should have an opportunity each year of debating the annual report of the Unemployment Assistance Board? Was not that one of the few methods of Parliamentary control over the Board that was contemplated by the Act?

Mr. Brown: The preparation of the report is not under my control.

Mr. Paling: Is it not possible to get these reports issued earlier, because the House gets up in July and it becomes impossible to discuss even the last year's work?

Mr. Brown: I will convey what has been said to the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Sir Percy Harris: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report is very


much later this year than last year, and that it is not published until the House is up?

HUDDERSFIELD.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. J. Sanderson, 410, Bradford Road, Huddersfield, has been offering himself for employment for five years without success; that this man, although disabled by the loss of a leg during the War, is otherwise strong, healthy and capable of either light work or heavier work; whether he can say if any offers of employment have been made to this man during the last five years by the Employment Exchange and, if not, whether there are any special circumstances in this case?

Mr. E. Brown: I am making inquiries about this case and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

KING'S ROLL.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Labour whether the King's National Roll Council have yet considered the suggestion to include within the

The numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Glasgow at the undermentioned dates were as follow:—


Employment Exchange.
24th June, 1935.
22nd June, 1936.
21st June, 1937.


Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Total.
Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Total.
Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Total.


Glasgow Central
12,165
443
12,608
11,239
394
11,633
10,041
273
10,314


Glasgow South Side.
16,032
610
16,642
14,520
615
15,135
12,832
478
13,310


Bridgeton
…
15,267
810
16,077
13,582
853
14,435
11,417
546
11,963


Finnieston
…
4,863
234
5,097
4,302
37
4,339
3,440
142
3,582


Govan
…
7,964
251
8,215
6,827
295
7,122
5,033
300
5,333


Kinning Park
…
5,479
121
5,600
4,575
143
4,718
3,978
85
4,063


Maryhill
…
6,563
324
6,887
5,927
220
6,147
5,396
184
5,580


Parkhead
…
9,424
921
10,345
8,583
633
9,216
7,259
487
7,746


Partick
…
6,774
215
6,989
5,238
148
5,386
3,866
161
4,027



Springburn
…
8,795
637
9,432
7,421
521
7,942
7,142
455
7,597

MINERS.

Mr. Dunn: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed miners over the age of 45 years are in receipt of benefits at the Employment Exchanges, whether standard benefits or Unemployment Assistance Board payments; how many miners 45 years and over have been re-employed in the mining industry during the last 12 months; and whether

scheme disabled ex-servicemen whose wounds were received on active service since the conclusion of the Great War; and whether any decision has been arrived at?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. but the matter will be brought before the King's Roll National Council at their next meeting.

GLASGOW.

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed registered at each of the Employment Exchanges in Glasgow at the end of June, 1935. 1936, and 1937, respectively, differentiating between the wholly unemployed and the temporarily unemployed?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the totals?

Mr. Brown: Yes, the totals are as follow: June, 1935, 97,892; June, 1936, 86,073; June, 1937, 73,515.

Following is the reply:

he has any proposals to make for the re-employment of such men in the near future?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that statistics giving the information asked for in the first and second parts of the question are not available. With regard to the last part, I have no doubt that the increased activity in the coal mining industry has resulted in the re-employment of miners


over the age of 45 as well as of younger men. I am anxious that the older unemployed men should have a chance of re-employment, and my Department will be glad, in co-operation with the employers and workpeople in the industry, to assist in any way it can towards their re-absorption.

Mr. T. Smith: Is the Minister aware that there has not been any big increase in older men in the coal mining industry?

Mr. Brown: My information is that in certain areas some older men have been employed.

CATERING TRADE (LONDON).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Labour the number of men, women, boys, and girls placed in employment by the Denmark Street Exchange for work in hotels in London?

Mr. E. Brown: The number of persons placed in employment in London and elsewhere by the Denmark Street Exchange since December, 1930, when the exchange was opened, to the end of 1936 is as follows: 71,150 men, 89,579 women, 19,266 boys and 8,126 girls. I regret that separate particulars relating to hotels in London are not available.

Mr. Kelly: In view of the numbers placed, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what the conditions of work and wages are to which these people are sent?

Mr. Brown: I am hoping to enter into discussions with the catering trade.

JUVENILES (LONDON).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls placed in employment through the exchanges in London and the districts adjoining during 1936 and the first six months of 1937.

Mr. E. Brown: I will circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the figures available.

Following is the table:

The numbers of boys and girls placed in employment by the Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in the London Division during 1936 and the first six months of 1937 are shown in the following table:



—
Boys.
Girls.
Total.


1936
83,030
70,078
153,108


1937 (6 months)
40,974
33,245
74,219

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENTS.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Labour the average increase in the rent of controlled working-class houses and the average increase of rent of working-class houses which have been decontrolled.

Mr. E. Brown: It is estimated that the average percentage increase, over the level of July, 1914, in the rents (including rates) of pre-War working-class dwellings taken into account in compiling the official cost-of-living index number is approximately 51 per cent. in the case of controlled dwellings, and approximately 85 per cent. in the case of decontrolled dwellings.

Mr. J. Hall: asked the Minister of Health the average rent of working-class houses constructed since 1931?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am not in a position to give the information asked for. A White Paper will, however, be available shortly, setting out the rents of houses belonging to local authorities. These rents in general reflect the various rent levels
ordinarily prevailing respect of working-class houses in the areas concerned.

RENT RESTRICTION ACT.

Mr. J. Hall: asked the Minister of Health the number of houses that have become decontrolled under the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts to the latest possible date?

Sir K. Wood: I will send the hon. Member a Memorandum (Command 4208) showing the estimated numbers of controlled and decontrolled houses in the three classes "A," "B" and "C" in 1932, but I have no comprehensive information as to the number to-day. By the Act of 1933, Class "A" houses were decontrolled, Class "B" houses continued to become decontrolled on the landlord gaining possession, and Class "C" houses were excluded from the operation


of the provisions relating to decontrol. The question will, no doubt, be considered by the Departmental Committee investigating the working of the Acts.

Mr. Thorne: Would the Minister inform Members of the House how they can get the information to which he has referred?

Sir K. Wood: It is in a Command Paper, which I shall be glad to send to the hon. Member.

LEYTON.

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that four families who have lived in the same houses in High Road, Leytonstone, have to leave their homes because they have been decided by the officers of the Leyton Council to be not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation; whether he will make inquiries as to whether these houses are controlled and as to the state of these dwellings, inasmuch as one tenant was informed that a reason for the demolition order being issued was the lack of air space in the pantry; and whether he will urge upon the local authority, as the warrants for ejectment were issued on their application, to provide at least temporary accommodation rather than operate the ejectment orders issued by the court?

Sir K. Wood: I gather that the houses in question are the subject of individual demolition orders. I have no other knowledge of the facts, nor any jurisdiction in the matter, since appeals against such orders lie to the county court. I will communicate with the Leyton Borough Council as to the desirability of providing accommodation for the displaced families.

Mr. Groves: Does the right hon. Gentleman's information extend to the fact that the members of at least one of these families are old age pensioners, who have nothing more than their pensions upon which to live, and that they are very ill and will he, in view of that fact, use such human friendly pressure as he can to induce the Leyton Council to see that none of these people are turned into the street?

Sir K. Wood: I have said that I would.

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Health the number of houses inspected in the borough of Leyton for the years 1934, 1935, and 1936, and the number

certified as not being in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation?

Sir K. Wood: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:


—
1934.
1935.
1936.


Number of houses inspected.
3,958
3,471
3,640


Number found not to be in all respects reasonable fit for human habitation.
1,648
1,718
1,612

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Labour whether the committee considering holidays with pay for working people has adjourned; if so, when will it resume its investigations; how often will it meet thereafter; and does he anticipate that it will issue its report this year?

Mr. E. Brown: The committee has adjourned until 5th October, when the taking of evidence will be continued. Thereafter the committee will, I understand, sit on two consecutive days every fortnight—an arrangement which, it is anticipated, will enable the committee to complete its labours at an early date.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the great importance of this matter to most of the population of this country, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that adjournment too long and that the committee should meet more frequently in order to report much sooner?

Mr. Brown: It was very important to get a committee which commanded general confidence, and, as the House knows, it is not always easy to get this voluntary service. In order to get the committee, I have had to arrange for an adjournment during August and September.

Mr. Mender: Is it expected to get their report before the end of the present year?

Mr. Brown: I can only say, at an early date.

BACON (PRICE).

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Labour the average retail price of bacon at present ruling in this country, and the similar figures for the years 1928 and 1929 before the fall in prices began, and the figures for 1931 and 1932 when the price fall was at its lowest?

Mr. E. Brown: The average retail price of bacon of the kinds most generally bought by working-class families, as shown by the information collected for the purpose of the official cost of living index number, was 1s. 2½d. per lb. at 1st July, 1937, as compared with 1s. 4d. at 1st July, 1928, 1s. 6d. at 1st July, 1929, 11d. at 1st July, 1931, and 10d. at 1st July, 1932.

Mr. Muff: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where we can find the best bacon at 1s. 2½d. per 1b.?

Mr. Brown: The answer depends entirely on where the hon. Member lives.

Mr. Muff: In Yorkshire.

Mr. Thorne: When the right hon. Gentleman gets home, will he ask his good wife whether she can get decent bacon at 1s. 2½d. per 1b.?

HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS (INQUIRY).

Mr. E. Dunn: asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to set up his family household budgetary inquiry; what will be its terms of reference and the personnel of the inquiry; and over what area is it proposed to operate?

Mr. E. Brown: It is proposed that about 30,000 working-class households, distributed over all parts of Great Britain, shall be visited and invited to supply budgets, on forms to be provided, giving details of their expenditure in each of four separate weeks, in October, 1937, and in January, April, and July, 1938, respectively. It is hoped that at least 10,000 of these households will supply information in respect of October, 1937, and that the great majority of these will also furnish information for the three later weeks. The inquiry will be organised through the Employment Exchanges, and it is hoped to obtain the assistance of local committees and of a sufficient number of voluntary helpers, in each district, to

undertake the work of visiting the households and collecting the budgets. The inquiry is primarily intended to furnish the data required for a revision of the basis of the official cost-of-living index figures, but it will also provide information required by the Health Departments in connection with questions relating to diet and nutrition. In view of the national importance of the inquiry, and of the great social value of the information to be obtained, I trust that the Department may rely on the co-operation of those who are asked to supply information or to assist in collecting the budgets.

Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, when the new method of calculation is settled, to make corrections for previous years and publish them?

Mr. Brown: Preparations are now being made for this exhaustive inquiry, and I am hoping to set the whole thing up in detail in the September number of the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

NIGHT BAKING.

Mr. Banfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the report of the committee of inquiry into night baking; what is the reason for the delay in presenting the report; and what action he proposes to take on the matter?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): The report of this committee was only received on Tuesday of last week, and as the hon. Member will be aware, was presented to Parliament on the following Thursday. As regards the last part of the question, the committee, by a majority, have advised against any statutory prohibition of night baking. Shortly stated, their view is that while such prohibition would work inequitably among employers and inflict hardship in many cases including a number of bakeries where the work is carried on under the best conditions, it would fall far short of providing comprehensive and effective relief to the night baker from the serious social disadvantages under which he labours. The situation as presented in the report obviously demands a much more thorough examination than it has been possible to make within the very short


time available, and I am not in a position at present to make any final announcement of the Government views on the main issue. It is clear however that in view of the nature of the report it would not in any case be possible for the Government to entertain any question of legislation on the subject during the present Session.
At the end of their report the committee draw attention to the need for better organisation in this industry and suggest that some recognised body should be set up on which representatives of both sides of the trade might meet together to thrash out their difficulties and devise means for amelioration of conditions. The Government regard this suggestion as a very valuable one and are prepared to take action to give effect to it, and I am glad to state that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be willing to enter into negotiations with the representatives of the two sides for this purpose without delay. I feel confident that if some satisfactory joint machinery can be established we could look forward to a great improvement in the general conditions of the industry.

Mr. Banfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this report has caused a tremendous amount of disappointment among both workmen and employers; and, in view of that, and of the fact that public opinion is also disappointed, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to go very seriously into the report and see whether something cannot be done to help these unfortunate people who are condemned to perpetual night work?

Sir S. Hoare: I agree with the hon. Member that this is a very important report. Indeed, it is so important that the Government obviously cannot come to a decision in a few days. I can give the hon. Member an undertaking that we will give the report great attention, and when we have come to a decision in due course I will make an announcement in the House.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REGISTER).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the poll in recent by-elections averaged about 50 per cent. of the electorate, and that this

was in part due to the contests beingfought on old and incomplete registers; and will he therefore take steps to enable a six-monthly instead of a yearly register to be compiled?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not in a position to estimate the extent to which the size of the poll at by-elections is related to the age of the register, but there does not appear to me to be any justification for incurring the heavy expenditure which would be involved in the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Strauss: Does the Home Secretary consider it satisfactory or in the best interests of democracy that an individual moving into a constituency now will not be able to vote in that constituency for another year? Will he not take some steps to remedy that situation?

Mr. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having the register issued a fortnight earlier, say on 1st October, instead of about the middle, as the municipal elections are always in November and it would greatly facilitate the conduct of them?

Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, though offhand I cannot say whether it is practicable or not. As to the wider issue raised by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), my own view is that the expense would not be justified.

Mr. Attlee: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from those responsible for running the recent by-elections as to the number of removals in those elections, particularly in those constituencies where there are heavy movements of the population round big towns?

Sir S. Hoare: Probably I am just as much aware as any hon. Member of the great problem of removals, sitting as I do for a London constituency. At the same time, as at present advised I am not prepared to recommend so heavy an expenditure as would be involved.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that the register at one time was issued twice a year under the Parliament Act, but that the twice-a-year system was discarded upon the recommendation of the Geddes Committee as a matter of economy, and since we are now, as the Government always insist, in an era of prosperity, will


not the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the register is published twice yearly again?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has such a financial consideration to be taken into account when the question at issue is the virtual disfranchisement of a good many of the poorer-class citizens?

Sir S. Hoare: I could not admit that there is such a disfranchisement. I am not prepared to admit that the issue of only one register a year does necessarily disfranchise people at all. It is really a question of judging whether the expense is or is not worth while, and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to say that it is.

Mr. Maclean: Is the Minister going to reply to my supplementary question?

Sir S. Hoare: I am afraid that I have forgotten what it was.

Mr. Maclean: As the right hon. Gentleman himself took part in the discussions I should have thought he would have remembered it. Is it not the case that the twice-a-year register was abandoned on the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, on the score of economy, and since we are now in the era of prosperity which the right hon. Gentleman, among other Cabinet Ministers, talks about, will he now see to it that the Geddes recommendation is put aside and we return to the twice-a-year register as was laid down in the Parliament Act?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, I must still say that however prosperous we may be we have to take into account whether any particular item of expenditure is worth while, and as at present advised I am not convinced that it is so in this case. It runs into something like £500,000 a year.

PASSPORTS (POLICE INQUIRIES).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary why delegates of the University Labour Federation returning to England, on 19th July, after attending the International Socialist Students' Conference in Paris, were asked by Criminal Investigation Department officers at Dover to give their names, their passport numbers, and their conference agenda?

Sir S. Hoare: I am informed that during the Customs examination the attention of the police was called to the baggage of a number of young men as it contained quantities of printed and typewritten matter, some of which was in foreign languages. The object of the police examination was to assist the Customs authorities to ascertain that nothing was being imported the importation of which is prohibited. I understand that a copy of the agenda was offered to the police as evidence of its innocuous character. I am informed that the party was not delayed in transit.

Mr. Strauss: Why should the Criminal Investigation Department officers ask for the names and passport numbers of these people and demand the agenda of the conference they had attended?

Sir S. Hoare: I understand that what happened was this: the Customs authorities, in examining the baggage of these particular individuals, did find a lot of foreign literature and a lot of leaflets, and that being so they felt justified in making further inquiries. The inquiries which were subsequently made by the police showed that the leaflets were innocuous, and as a result those particular individuals were not delayed in their journey.

Mr. Strauss: But why should they be asked to give their passport numbers and their names? Nobody else is asked to do so.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing fear that Socialists are selected for this treatment, and will he give the House an assurance that there is no differentiation of treatment against Socialists entering this country as compared with people holding other opinions?

Sir S. Hoare: Certainly, I give that undertaking at once. What happened in the case of those individuals would happen in the case of any other individuals, whether Socialists, Conservatives or Communists.

BRIBERY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the conviction, at Birmingham, on 12th July, of Mr. Colledge Persche, of the National Printing Ink Company, Limited,


72–75, Turnmill Street, London, for attempted bribery and corruption of two employés of Boxfoldia, Limited, of Bournebrook, Birmingham, by the offer of 5 per cent. on all orders received, with an extra bonus at Christmas and a cheque for the summer holidays; that a fine of £15 was imposed; and whether he will consider the advisability of circularising magistrates with regard to the importance of enforcing rigorously the terms of the law with a view to stamping out the at present widespread occurrence of bribery in certain industries?

Sir S. Hoare: My attention had not previously been drawn to the case to which the hon. Member refers. I share his view that it is important to check offences of this kind and I am not aware of any reason for thinking that there is any tendency to regard them lightly. It is, however, for the court to decide in its discretion what is the penalty appropriate to the circumstances of any individual case that may come before it, and I have no authority to issue advice to magistrates as to the way in which their discretion should be exercised.

Mr. Mander: In view of the prevalence of this dishonest method of getting business in the printing and other trades, will my right hon. Friend do everything he properly can to secure the enforcement of the law?

Sir S. Hoare: I think the hon. Member's question has already called attention to this matter, and my answer shows clearly what is my view.

Mr. Thurtle: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to drive corruption out of the country's system?

NATURALISATION (EMPLOYERS).

Mr. F. O. Roberts: asked the Home Secretary whether, before granting naturalisation to any person who is an employer of labour, steps are taken to ascertain whether such person is willing to conform to customary British standards of trading and employment; and, if not, whether this provision will be adopted in future?

Sir S. Hoare: Before naturalisation is granted in any case full inquiries are made about the character and reputation

of the applicant. If there is reason to doubt his commercial reputation or his character as an employer of labour this consideration is taken into account, together with all the other circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

Mr. Roberts: I will certainly do that.

ACCIDENTS (FACTORIES).

Mr. Short: asked the Home Secretary whether, since the chief factory inspector's report records a large increase in accidents among adults and young persons, he can state what remedial action he proposes to take between now and July, 1938, when the new Factory Act comes into operation?

Sir S. Hoare: I much regret the increase in accidents during 1936 as compared with 1935, but, as the Chief Inspector points out in the introduction to his report, the increase in the number of accidents is partly due to increased employment, and statistics over a period of years show that the rate of accidents in proportion to the number of persons in employment is decreasing. I should like to take this further opportunity of emphasising that if any large reduction of accidents is to be obtained, it must be through the exercise of increased care by both employers and workpeople, and that this can best be secured through the development of safety organisations. As the hon. Member is aware, the Factory Department has made every effort in the past to promote such development and it will continue to do so.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the Home Secretary aware that the Chief Inspector states that thousands of these accidents are preventible; and is he not aware also that a great many of the accidents occur through machinery not being properly protected?

Sir S. Hoare: I accept it as perfectly true that a great many accidents, both in factories and on the roads, are preventible. If only employers and work-people would pay more attention to precautions there would be many fewer accidents. So far as the Factory Department of the Home Office are concerned, we will do everything in our power to reduce the number.

FACTORY INSPECTORATE.

Mr. Short: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to increase the number of factory inspectors prior to the new Factory Act coming into operation; and, if so, by how many?

Sir S. Hoare: A substantial increase of the factory inspectorate will, as I have already stated, be necessary in consequence of the Factories Bill, but I am not yet in a position to say when this increase will take place.

MEETINGS, EAST LONDON (DISTURBANCES).

Mr. Chater: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at a trades union meeting held in Victoria Park, East London, on Sunday, 18th July, the police requested the closing of the meeting, which was subjected to continuous organised disorder by Fascists; and whether he is prepared to take steps to protect the rights of free speech?

Sir S. Hoare: I have received a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis from which it appears that throughout the meeting referred to there was considerable heckling and shouting by political opponents. There was, however, no actual disorder, and I am informed that at no time did the police in attendance ask or even suggest that the meeting should be closed.

Mr. Chater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the organised activity of Fascist interrupters at meetings in the East End of London the right of free speech there is rapidly becoming obsolete?

Mr. Wise: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind hon. Members opposite of the old saying that when
The devil was sick, the devil a monk would be.

Sir S. Hoare: There is much too much interruption of political meetings on both sides, and I hope the hon. Member's question will call attention to this fact and the need of each side giving the other a fair hearing.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend realise that in the country as a whole many more meetings are broken up by supporters of the Left than by supporters of the Right?

BUILDING SOCIETIES (LOANS).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give particulars supplied to him by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for the total amount that has been advanced on mortgage by building societies for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and whether he has any information in his possession that will show the average amount of interest charged on these loans?

Sir S. Hoare: The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies informs me that the total amount advanced on mortgage by building societies during the year ended 31st January, 1937, was £140,310,068. The Registrar has no information as to the average rate of interest charged on the advances made during the year in question. From their advertisements it would appear that societies were ordinarily prepared to make new advances at an interest charge of 4½ per cent.

Mr. Day: Are those reports received regularly every year?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not quite sure to what the hon. Member refers. If he will send me further particulars, I will give him an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has particulars concerning the number of elementary education authorities who confine the appointment of headmasters and headmistresses exclusively to teachers within their own authority?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate his opinion regarding this matter to the various education authorities; and does he not feel that if the scope for selection were widened it would be beneficial to education as a whole?

Mr. Lindsay: There could be arguments for and against on that point, but it is a matter for the local education authorities. Personally. I am in favour of greater mobility.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not the hon. Member circulate that opinion?

Mr. Lindsay: It is a question for the local authorities.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his Department has made inquiries in recent years concerning the method of appointing headmasters and headmistresses in elementary schools; whether it has ever made recommendations to elementary education authorities concerning such appointments; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of making such recommendations?

Mr. Lindsay: No, Sir. The appointment of teachers in public elementary schools rests with the local education authorities and managers, and it is not the Board's policy to interfere with their discretion in this matter.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of nursery schools now in existence in Wales and Monmouthshire; the number of children in average attendance; and the number of teachers employed?

Mr. Lindsay: There are four recognised nursery schools in Wales and Monmouthshire, situated at Brynmawr, Merthyr Tydfil, Rhondda, and Swansea. These schools have accommodation for 360 children in all, and the total number of children in average attendance during the year ended 31st March, 1937, was 228. Eleven teachers are employed, together with a number of unqualified helpers. A proposal for a second nursery school at Rhondda has been approved in principle and a proposal for the provision of a nursery school at Cardiff is at present under consideration.

Mr. Day: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of proposals at present before his Department for the purpose of opening nursery schools in England and Wales; and how many of these proposals are for open-air schools?

Mr. Lindsay: Thirty-four proposals for opening nursery schools in England and Wales have been approved in principle by my Department and in a number of these cases final plans have been

approved. Nine proposals are at present under consideration. In all these cases it is proposed that the buildings of the schools shall be constructed on open air lines.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say how many of these proposals he has had to refuse, and how many nursery schools are in being at the present time?

Mr. Lindsay: That is quite a separate question.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman do all in his power to encourage these schools?

Mr. Lindsay: The Board welcome the provision of these schools in any part of the country where conditions are suitable.

BENEFICIAL EMPLOYMENT.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he proposes to advise local education authorities as to the employments which shall be deemed to be beneficial under the provisions of the Education Act, 1936; and, if not, in what way uniformity of decision is to be arrived at on this question?

Mr. Lindsay: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 15th July to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey), a copy of which I am sending him.

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS (SAFETY LECTURES).

Mr. Short: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware of the increasing number of accidents to young persons employed in factories; and whether in consultation with the Home Office he will arrange for lectures on safety-first principles to be given to children attending schools in industrial areas?

Mr. Lindsay: I am not in possession of full information on this subject, but I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the matter.

PLAY CENTRES.

Mr. Bull: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, what steps his Department is taking to encourage the provision of play centres?

Mr. Lindsay: In view of the educational value of the recreational and physical


activities of play centres and in view of the dangers of the streets, my Department welcomes proposals for these centres under Section 22 of the Education Act, 1921, and is prepared to recognise them for grant at 50 per cent. when they fulfil the conditions of Article 38 of the Board's Special Services Regulations. Play centres depend for their usefulness on the supervision of skilled play leaders, and they are especially valuable where they provide for both summer and winter activities.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Sir Hugh O'Neill: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the report of the Select Committee on the Procedure on Private Bills containing local legislation Clauses; and, if so, what action he intends to take with regard to its recommendations?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The report of the Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure is now being considered. I do not expect that I shall be in a position to make a statement on the recommendations before the end of the present Session.

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE (PUBLICITY).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister the present position with regard to the question of publicity of national defence expenditure, and the possibility of attaining general agreement on the draft convention on this subject drawn up by the competent sub-committee of the Disarmament Conference referred to in paragraph 19 of the statement relating to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms, 1935–36?

The Prime Minister: In accordance with the decision reached by the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference on 31st May last, the Governments which were or had been represented at the Conference were invited to inform the Secretariat of the League, before 1st September next, whether they are prepared, in principle, to accept a system of publicity based on the draft Convention referred to by the

hon. Member. Until the replies have been received and considered it is difficult to estimate the possibility of attaining general agreement or; the draft Convention.

Mr. Mander: Is not this one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission that the Government accept and on which they are anxious to secure agreement?

The Prime Minister: We have said that we will accept the Convention if other Powers will do so.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SUMMER ADJOURNMENT).

Mr. Magnay: asked the Prime Minister whether, in future years, he will endeavour to arrange that it shall be possible to adjourn the House at the end of June until September instead of the present practice?

The Prime Minister: I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am afraid that the many practical difficulties which have hitherto stood in the way of any change from the present practice still exist.

Mr. Magnay: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general feeling of the House is not to consider Members who go grousing on the moor in October but Members who grouse on the Floor here?

Mr. Thorne: Is he also aware that lawyers stand in the way as well?

REARMAMENT AND EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Prime Minister which Department or committee is considering what measures should be taken to provide employment when the output of rearmament factories begins to be relaxed?

The Prime Minister: The subject does not fall wholly within the purview of any single Department. Arrangements have been made for the question to be studied by officials of the Departments mainly concerned.

Mr. Lawson: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there is some specific policy on the part of the Government to prepare measures such as he mentioned in the event of tension arising from rearmament?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I did not quite say that, because we have not quite come to that point. I said that the question was being studied and in the light of that study. and when it is completed, that point will have to be decided afterwards.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to institute arrangements whereby questions put down for written answers shall be answered by the Department concerned on a specified date if so indicated, unless reason can be shown that the information cannot he obtained by that date?

The Prime Minister: I recently called the attention of Departments to the importance of ensuring that undue delay does not occur in the circulation of answers to questions for written reply, and I regard the existing arrangements as satisfactory. The House will, however, appreciate that it is not in all cases practicable to arrange for the preparation of the required answer in time for circulation on a specified day. To provide for this eventuality I have arranged that, if for any reason it is found impossible to circulate the answer within four days of the specified date, the hon. Member concerned should be notified that inquiries are being made and that the question has not been overlooked.

Mr. Garro Jones: What is there in written answers which makes it impossible to give them on specified dates, whereas oral questions can be so answered?

The Prime Minister: There is, of course, no definite distinction between them, but very frequently the questions put down for written answer require a great deal of investigation.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware of the delay which frequently occurs in giving replies to non-oral questions and which forces hon. Members to star the questions and overload the Question Paper?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I was not aware of that, but I think there has sometimes been undue delay. I think the new arrangement which I am making will correct it.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider shortening the four days after which a question is to be overdue and notification is to be sent to a Member, because occasionally a Member puts down a question with a view to getting information before a particular debate, and if the answer is not likely to be to hand by that time it would be an act of courtesy to notify him of that fact?

The Prime Minister: I could not undertake that Members should be notified in less than four days, which I think is a reasonable time.

Mr. Benn: Is not this an innovation, and has not 24 hours' notice been satisfactory for oral questions?

The Prime Minister: There have been improvements in lots of cases.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the heavy expenditure being incurred by the Air Ministry and the great importance of questions connected with air Defence, he will now make arrangements whereby the Secretary of State for Air shall be a Member of this House?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which my predecessor gave to him on 15th March last, in reply to a similar question, to which I have nothing to add.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very strong feeling exists on all sides of the House about the great inconvenience to Members in not being able to put questions direct to the head of this great spending Department?

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that many hon. Members opposite attach so little importance to Defence that they are not prepared to do anything?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MILK (PASTEURISATION).

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Health in view of the many loopholes in the evidence adduced in support of allegations against raw milk in connection with outbreaks of scarlet fever and typhoid fever, before he sanctions any general claim for the compulsory


pasteurisation of milk, whether he will have a searching inquiry made into the allegations made against raw milk?

Sir K. Wood: I am not aware to which particular outbreaks of these diseases the hon. Member refers. I am satisfied that in all recent cases of this kind which have been investigated by my Department and in which the outbreak was traced to the consumption of raw milk, the evidence on this point was conclusive. The Cattle Diseases Committee of the Economic Advisory Council which reported in 1934, reviewed the question of the danger of the spread of these diseases through the medium of milk, before they recommended compulsory pasteurisation in large towns, and I do not consider it necessary to institute any further inquiry into this question.

Mr. Leach: Did the Minister not agree that it is better to have your milk clean and unpasteurised, with live bacilli, if there should be any, rather than pasteurised when the bacilli have been made corpses?

Sir K. Wood: I will carefully ponder over that question.

HONEY.

Mr. F. O. Roberts: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that preparations of honey with other ingredients are still being sold in such a manner as to suggest that the purchaser is buying pure honey; and whether he will take steps to see that the use of the word "honey" shall only be used in connection with the sale of the pure product?

Sir K. Wood: Representations have been made to me with regard to preparations of the kind referred to, and the matter has been discussed with a deputation from the British Bee-Keepers Association. I hope that it may be possible to introduce legislation relating to the composition and description of articles of food on the lines recommended by the Departmental Committee which has reported upon that subject, and which would include provisions dealing with the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roberts: Has not the right hon. Gentleman already some power to put a stop to fraud of this description?

Sir K. Wood: That may be so in certain cases where fraud can be proved. There are, however, some other considerations which I hope may be met in the way I have indicated.

TYNESIDE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to visit Tyneside to discuss with representatives of local authorities the question of giving effect to the findings of the Royal Commission on unification before making any statement to this House; and whether he is aware that the delay in dealing with this report is causing great inconvenience to the authorities concerned?

Sir K. Wood: I hope to be able in the course of the Recess to visit Tyneside, and the findings of the Royal Commission will no doubt be likely to come up for discussion at my meetings with representatives of the local authorities concerned. As regards the second half of the question, I am awaiting the views of the local authorities. I am afraid that it is inevitable that some time should be occupied in the consideration of these recommendations.

Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate date when we shall have the report?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I am really waiting to hear from the local authorities on this matter. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I have no doubt, that the matter is engaging their attention, but the making of inquiries takes some time.

Mr. Stewart: When may a reply from them be expected?

Sir K. Wood: I will inquire.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of a pension under the National Health Insurance Act and the Old Age Pensions Act who applied for relief to the public assistance committee, of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire during 1936, and the total amount of relief granted to pensioners by each of the two counties?

Sir K. Wood: As the answer contains a statement of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Following is the answer:

Returns are made by public assistance authorities which show the numbers of old age pensioners and widow pensioners

—
Numbers of old age pensioners who were in receipt of poor relief on 1st January, 1937.
Numbers of widows drawing widows, Orphans', and Old Age Contributory pensions Act, 1936, who were in receipt of poor relief on 1st January, 1937.


County of Glamorgan (including the associated County Boroughs of Cardiff, Merthyr Tydfil and Swansea).
13,830
7,425


County of Monmouth (including the associated County Borough of Newport).
4,206
1,587

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Health whether, in his investigations into the subject of nutrition, any effort has been made to ascertain whether the present scales of old age pensions are preventing the recipients from purchasing an adequate supply of foodstuffs; and to what extent malnutrition exists among these persons?

Sir K. Wood: Special dietary surveys are being undertaken in certain areas which deal with working-class families, including the class of persons referred to. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

Miss Wilkinson: Does the Minister really consider it necessary to have an inquiry in order to discover whether any adult person can live on 10s. a week, with the terrific prices that are prevailing as a result of the policy of the Government?

Sir K. Wood: Inquiries on this subject are proceeding. I would remind the hon. Member that it is the same sum that was paid during the period of other Governments.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the rents paid by aged persons who are in receipt of old age pensions; and whether, in cases where the total amount of pension is 10s. per week, local authorities allow any relief in rates?

in receipt of poor relief on 1st January in each year. The following statement shows, for Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, the numbers of old age pensioners and widow pensioners who were in receipt of poor relief on 1st January, 1937. I regret that the information asked for in the last part of the question is not available in my Department.

Sir K. Wood: I have no precise information on either of the points raised, but a number of local authorities have adopted rent rebate schemes under the Housing Acts, and many have built, or are building, small houses to let to aged persons at specially low rents. Local authorities have power, on application made by a ratepayer, to excuse rates on the ground of poverty.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the tabulating of the number of old age pensioners on a territorial or area basis, so that it can be ascertained what percentage of old age pensioners for each area claim and receive Poor Law relief?

Sir K. Wood: The proposal would involve a duplication of the records relating to 1,880,000 old age pensioners, and I do not think the considerable expense and labour which that operation would entail would be justified.

Mr. Tinker: If this question is to be regarded as a live question to a greater extent than has hitherto been the case, would it not be as well if we had correct information showing what localities are suffering the most?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid the expense would be too great.

Mr. Tinker: You are evading the question by using the word "expense."

SCRAP-IRON (COLLECTION).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the need for scrap metal and of the indisposition of scrap merchants to collect it in small quantities from private individuals, he will recommend local government authorities to institute a system of collection from this source in their areas?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject on 15th July, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (WOMEN).

Mr. Mabane: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider an amendment of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts to provide that a woman may draw a pension as an unmarried wife under the same conditions as women were allowed to receive separation allowances as unmarried wives of soldiers during the War?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that I could not undertake to introduce amending legislation for this purpose.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUMMER RECESS).

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: Monday: Supply, Committee (19th Allotted Day). The Mines Department Vote will be considered. Ways and Means, Committee.
Tuesday: Supply, Report (20th Allotted Day). A Debate will take place on the Co-ordination of Defence. Ways and Means, Report.
Wednesday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Second Reading. A Debate on the cost of living will take place.
Thursday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, remaining stages. Debates will take place on Dominion Affairs and on questions affecting the Post Office.
At Ten o'clock on Monday and on Tuesday the Committee and Report stages respectively of all outstanding Supply Votes will be put from the Chair.
During the week any outstanding business will be dealt with, including Lords Amendments to the Factories Bill and to other Bills which have already been passed by this House.
If all necessary business has been disposed of, it is hoped to take the Motion for the Summer Adjournment on Friday, 30th July. The Adjournment Motion will contain the usual provision to empower Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date, if such a course should appear necessary in the public interest.
The Government propose that the House shall reassemble on Thursday, 21st October. It is expected that Parliament will be prorogued on that day, and that His Majesty will open the new Session on Tuesday, 26th October.

Mr. Thurtle: On the point of calling the House together, if necessary, before the date appointed, may we take it that the procedure is for the Prime Minister to approach you, Mr. Speaker, in the matter, in order to make such an arrangement if necessary; or who is to indicate when it is necessary for Parliament to be called together before the prearranged time?

Mr. Speaker: Anybody can indicate that, but the terms of the Resolution are: if it is represented to me by the Government that public interest requires it and I am satisfied that it is in the public interest.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Would the Prime Minister say at what time the House will adjourn on the Friday? Will it be at Four o'clock?

The Prime Minister: At Four o'clock.

Mr. Buchanan: May I give notice to you, Mr. Speaker, that, on the Motion for Adjournment on Friday week, I shall move as an Amendment to it that the House can be recalled by any 40 Members of the House making a requisition to you?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Waterford Corporation Bill,

Southampton Corporation Bill,

Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1937.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI.

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £35,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Grants in Aid of the general administrative and other expenses of the Herring Industry Board and of the Herring Marketing Fund."—[Note.—£17,000 has been voted on account.]

3.49 P.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I think it is of interest that this Debate, although it takes place on the Scottish Estimates day, is in fact a United Kingdom Debate. The Herring Industry Board is a United Kingdom body, and, as was pointed out when the scheme was going through the House, although the headquarters of the industry are in Scotland, the Board itself covers the United Kingdom, and, as its activities cover the United Kingdom, any of its functions can be raised to-day. That is specially necessary in connection with the herring industry, because, although we have two Ministries, the Scottish Fishery Board and the English Department of Fisheries, the herring fishing is, as we all know, one fishing, and its problems cannot be considered separately for Scotland and for England. Consequently, the Minister, that is, the joint Minister, as the spokesman of the Board, has to justify the Estimates laid before the House.
It appears that this will be the only occasion on which the great British industry of fishing can be discussed this Session. The herring and white fishing play an important part in the life of the nation. Last year the British Fisheries produced 1,000,000 tons of fish, valued at the ports of landing at £15,750,000. Of these herring were a small fraction. The weight was 278,000 tons and the value £2,405,000. The herring and white fishing industry are also closely bound up

together and in discussing, as we shall do, the affairs of the herring industry we must not forget entirely that the white fishing industry is also going through a difficult time and is making very active efforts to reorganise itself, the result of which efforts will come before the House, I hope, next Session.
But the economic importance of the fisheries is even greater in Scotland than in England. It is specially so in the case of the herring industry. The Board, accordingly, shows a reasonable division between Scotsmen and Englishmen for a United Kingdom body—six Scotsmen and three Englishmen. The most remarkable thing about the report is that it has been signed unanimously. It is signed by the Chairman, Sir Thomas Whitson, of Edinburgh, Mr. Adam Brown, of Fraserburgh, Mr. Gordon Davidson, of Glasgow, Mr. William Forman, of Peterhead, Mr. Mitchell, a curer, and also by Mr. Neil Mackay, who, though his activities are mostly in England, is interested in the large curing industry in Scotland also. It is all the more interesting since the report does not entirely flatter our Scottish pride, and we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Board and its members for the very frank way in which they have stated conclusions which are in many respects not flattering to those who come from North of the Tweed.
The great industry of the herring fishing is the following of the shoals down the coast. We are fortunately placed, in that the track of the great shoals runs parallel to our east coast and, consequently, the fishers continually have the shoals before them as they pass down from Lerwick past Peterhead, past the Northumberland ports, right down to Yarmouth and Lowestoft and in some cases right down into the English Channel. The herring is a perishable fish and it is that perishable quality that has led to the great and important industry of herring curing. It is also that perishable quality that has led to certain incidents in the industry which have, perhaps, attracted more attention than they deserve in comparison with the importance of the industry itself. I refer to the temporary gluts which take place from time to time and on which the House feels very keenly that, having been once caught, any portion of the catch should be surrendered. It appears to some


Members to be a paradox, an anomaly and even a crime.
Let me explain how this glut arises. I have said that the essential feature of the herring industry is the track of the great shoals right down the east coast from the northern islands. It has another feature. As the shoals reach our coasts in the first instance, the fish are not of such good quality as they are later on, and the May and June herring are not of such good quality as those that are taken in the autumn catch. The early summer herring used to be caught in great numbers and were sold for the export trade. Our people, fastidious and well supplied with food, have always shown themselves very chary of anything in the way of cured herring taken from the earlier shoals.

Mr. Boothby: Is it not a fact that the July Scotch herring is the cream of the whole?

Mr. Elliot: I do not wish to go into detail. I am doing my best to keep to the 15 minutes to which Scottish Members desire that I should limit myself. I will not go into the particular quality of a particular catch taken off a particular constituency, but I think in general the summer herring are for the export trade and the difficulty has been that that portion of the trade has become more and more difficult in recent years. In the far distant ports, for instance Lerwick, and even ports relatively distant, such as Peterhead and Fraserburgh, which though very near important centres, such as Aberdeen, are at a greater distance from the more important centres of population in the South, these highly perishable fish are taken in great numbers. A glut arises and herring are rejected, not in the sense of being thrown away to preserve the price but simply because it is not physically possible to handle them and get them as fresh herring to any place where they can be eaten in time. In so far as the destruction of fish can be explained by merely physical reasons, that they could not be processed in time to be brought to a place where they could be eaten, I hope the Committee will accept that as a full explanation. What is resented is the case, if such cases exist, where fish fit for consumption, near a market, are destroyed wantonly, or merely for the purpose of keeping up the price.
In the summer the fishing from Peterhead, Fraserburgh and other ports, such as Lerwick and Stornoway, inevitably leads to a certain number of gluts. I hope I can convince the Committee, from the examination that I have been able to give to the question, that these gluts arise from physical causes and that it will never be possible entirely to avoid gluts of herring when a large catch is landed at a distant port. Later on, during the curing season, it is seldom that any dumping takes place. As far as I am advised, if it takes place it is due to the fact that the staff and the plant are physically incapable of dealing with the whole catch, or that the herring reach port in such poor condition that they are not worth curing. No organisation can ever be maintained at a point where it will deal with very rarely recurring peak conditions and, if you were to retain the overhead charges of an organisation which could deal with the whole catch when every boat has come home fully loaded, you would be maintaining an overhead which would be itself a heavy burden on the industry.
There are no doubt occasions upon which a dispute arises between the curers and the fishermen as to whether, when there is an exceptional catch, the curers can pay the price asked, for to deal with such a catch exceptionally expensive processing must be undertaken, and naturally at that point the curers want a reduction upon the price they have previously paid and the fishermen naturally object to that reduction. My information is that in such cases it is very seldom that a dispute arises, that in most cases the two get together, and by turning a blind eye to some regulation or other they come to an amicable arrangement. But I do not deny that there may be some cases in which an actual destruction of fish takes place under these conditions. They are, however, extremely rare. The whole of the dumping of fish, taken together, amounts to not 1 per cent. of the catch in the year, and 99 per cent. of the fish caught are, in fact, brought to shore and used as human food. That perhaps helps the Committee to put in better proportion an essential feature of fishing—the occasional dumping.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the statement authentic that 99 per cent. of the catch


is not destroyed and that only 1 per cent. is lost by being put into the sea again?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, I took great care to work out the facts. I am giving the figures for the year 1936 and those are the exact facts for that year. It was a fairly average year as these things go. With a full sense of responsibility I say that the average consumption of these fish caught around our shores is 99 per cent. of the fish caught; one fish out of 100 may be thrown away, but the remaining 99 are brought to shore and used for food.

Mr. T. Johnston: That refers to herring?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, it refers to herring. The proportion of white fish is different, because white fish keep better. Let me give the House two figures. In 1913 the British catch was 588,000 tons and in 1936 278,000 tons. That is a measure of the enormous falling off in the take of this industry. I do not think that the falling off is due to a shortage of fish. The herring are there to be taken, but what I have already stated shows that what we are dealing with is not the fact that an odd fish, one out of 100, goes back to the sea, but the failure to take the 200,000 to 300,000 tons which could be taken if the industry was on the same scale as it was before the War. The difficulty, of course, arises very largely in the export market, and there again let us recall the difficulties of other sections of the fishing industry as well as those of the herring section. The herring is an export fish, the white fish industry is an import industry, and the interests of the two sections are divergent. At one moment our white fishermen come and say, "We wish you to cut down the German quota of fish landed in this country, for you are putting our people out of work;" and at the same moment the other fishermen say, "By hook or by crook you must succeed in getting our quota of fish into Germany extended, or we shall be out of work." Those are the difficulties of the post-war world. But they are the difficulties with which the Herring Board has to grapple.
Let us remember these difficulties when we feel inclined, as some people or some Members of the Committee do, to raise our fists to high Heaven and call for the heads of nearly all those who sit on this

side of the Committee. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) were in Russia to-day, he would be foremost in campaigns against wreckers. The problem before the Herring Board was a very difficult one. It called not only for energy and wise administration on the Board's part, but for the co-operation and sympathetic understanding of the industry. No doubt the two sides have honestly tried to carry out the trust imposed upon them. I cannot claim, and I do not think they claim, that every step they have taken has been the very best that could have been taken, but I would also say that the industry itself has from time to time not been blameless in its attitude towards the Board. It has been a little apt to consider the Board as a committee of archangels sent to lift it out of its troubles, and not as a number of very human men, most themselves engaged in the industry, bending their energies to deal with the extraordinarily difficult problem which I have detailed to the Committee.
One of the main complaints made by the industry is that sufficient energy has not been displayed in recapturing the export markets. Take two of the great export markets, Soviet Russia and Germany. The characteristic of the purchases of Soviet Russia is that they are made by very hard-fisted buyers. In Russia you have the whole of that industry united in one single control of an ironclad character, and it is one of the hardest bargainers in the international trade. The quantities sold to Russia vary very much—from 12,000 barrels in 1930 to 105,000 barrels in 1935 and down to 20,000 barrels in 1936. The two last years, 1935 and 1936, exemplify the character of the Russian purchases, in that the 105,000 barrels were sold on contracts and for these the price was only 27s. or rather less; and in the case of the 20,000 barrels the Board refused or failed to negotiate a contract, and these herring were sold at the market price. When Soviet Russia had to pay the market price it paid 35s. a barrel for herring which the previous year it had bought at 27s. That explains the uneasiness of the Herring Board in coming into close bargaining with these extremely acute business men.
It is easier to deal with the comparatively mild and unbusinesslike purchasers


of Nazi Germany. They purchase herring in enormous quantities and they buy them at the market price. As against the Russian purchases of 20,000 barrels and 105,000 barrels and 70,000 barrels the German purchase has run pretty steadily to such figures as 406,000 barrels in 1932; 375,000 in 1933; 258,000 in 1934; 438,000 in 1935; and 417,000 in 1936. It is true to say that the Central European market is proving more easy to sell in than the Eastern market of European Russia; the middle of the Baltic is easier than the far end, because in addition to the German purchases there are the Polish purchases, which are very important. We sold to Poland in 1932, 238,000 barrels; 213,000 barrels in 1933; 246,000 barrels in 1934; 269,000 in 1935; and 309,000 barrels in 1936. It is impossible, of course, to leave out of account altogether the influence of trade agreements in these matters, and the trade agreements have helped, I think. But let us not deceive ourselves. There are signs of a strong effort being made by Germany to develop her own fishing and to catch her fish for herself. We have to watch these developments of fishing fleets in other countries.

Mr. Johnston: Is it not the case, as stated in the Annual Report of the Fishery Board, on page 25, that all imports of fish to the German market are regulated by a committee just as the Russian market purchases are regulated, and that British exporters have the same difficulty with regard to price in Germany as in Russia?

Mr. Thorne: Are the German fishermen entitled to fish in the same waters as our people from Scotland and England?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, certainly; these are international waters and anyone can fish in them. They are outside the three-miles limit. The herring shoals are out of sight of land very often.

Mr. Macquisten: They are fishing in Loch Fyne sometimes.

Mr. Elliot: There are very few Germans who fish in Loch Fyne.

Mr. Johnston: What about the reference that I have mentioned?

Mr. Elliot: Of course it is true that in both Russia and Germany the import trade is highly regulated, but I think that the figures I have given show that up to the present it has been possible to sell a very much larger number of herring to Germany, and, indeed, to Poland, than to Russia. The price has been much closer to the world price than the very closely negotiated price obtained for the relatively small number of herring which the Russian market was willing to take. If we can get an improvement of international conditions then no doubt a general improvement of this export trade can be expected. But the white fish industry and the herring industry are to some extent at loggerheads, and we must take both their difficulties into account when we call for the utmost efforts to be made to get our export trade going again and to get fish into these foreign markets. That does not leave out of account the question of the most efficient and the most economical production of the herring here at home.

Mr. Kirkwood: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of exports of herring, what about our trade with America? Is our export of herring to America increasing or decreasing?

Mr. Elliot: The Board has published a very interesting table showing figures which include America. The figures of the American trade have recently been declining. I think that that is partly due to a falling off in the catch. There were 24,000 barrels exported in 1935, but the figure had come down to 18,000 barrels in 1936. There was some difficulty with the catch; there was not the same amount of herring available last year, but leaving the catch on the market resulted in a much higher price being paid for the fish. I do not wish to go into details; they are given at great length on page 16 of the report of the Herring Industry Board.

Mr. Kirkwood: The great majority of those interested will read the report of these proceedings during the week-end.

Mr. Elliot: I believe that the people engaged in this trade read anything that is connected with the prosperity of their industry very closely indeed.

Mr. Kirkwood: There are hundreds of people who will never see this report.

Mr. Elliot: What I am now saying will be of value to them and will excuse the


trespass which I am making upon the time of the Committee. On the question of the production or economic catching of herring, the report of the Herring Industry Board is really of very great value indeed. They have compared the results achieved by the Northern and the Southern half of this industry, and even the most vehement of us who come from the North must admit that it makes very strange reading. On page 9, after reviewing the catchings, they say:
These figures show a difference in favour of the English vessels of 42 per cent. in the amount of crans per landing and over 34 per cent. in earnings per vessel.
They go on to say:
Even if full allowance is made for the greater knowledge of the English fishermen of their home grounds it seems that this difference must be attributed in the main to general inefficiency due to the effect of autumn weather upon vessels and gear which had become inefficient owing to long continued lack of repair and maintenance, but if these disabilities were removed and the vessels and gear put into good order there is no reason why the Scottish earnings from week-day fishings should not be on a scale comparable with those of the English.
It is true that the facts seem to show that the English system is, for some reason or other, better fitted to existing conditions than the Scottish system, and I have been asked what the difference is. The general reason I have been given is that the English fishing is conducted by much larger units than the Scottish fishing. I do not mean in larger boats, but in larger aggregations of boats. It is done by companies, and these companies are able to give better service and also—and this is very important—to stand the loss which occasionally arises from accidents due to storm or to stress of weather. The companies are able to stand the expenditure upon an individual boat much better than an individual whose whole capital is invested in the undertaking. This is a further rather unpalatable fact. The English boats keep at sea longer than the Scottish boats. The Scotsman, with his whole capital invested in one boat, when a storm begins to rise and the sky becomes overcast, not only risks his life, but his gear, and, therefore, makes for home. The Englishman, with the very much greater resources of a company behind him, is willing to take the risk, and very often successfully takes the risk, and thereafter he is on the spot to begin fishing again, whereas his Scottish colleague has run for port and has to make his way

out again to the fishing ground. He meets, on his way out to the fishing ground, his English competitor coming in fully loaded to meet a short market.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this is a fair general picture of the position between the two countries? It does not seem to me to be quite a fair representation of the Scottish fisherman's job.

Mr. Garro Jones: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman's very interesting survey, but is it not the fact that the value of this comparison is almost entirely set off by the fact that it does not take into account the comparative cost of running the two fleets, the English fleet being known to have larger overhead and other charges than the Scottish fleet.

Mr. Macquisten: Is not the fish caught by the Scottish fishermen much fresher than that caught by the English fishermen? Is not Loch Fyne-caught fish landed beautifully fresh; and it is not much better than fish sold in London?

Mr. Elliot: Loch Fyne is nearer Glasgow than the Dogger Bank is to London. You cannot get away from that fact. The Lower Clyde is very near to a great centre of population, but I do not wish to go into that point. Fish is certainly fresher if a man has been on the Bank all night and has risked the weather and then comes in with a cargo of fish, than is the case of fish caught by someone who has been hanging about. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) asked if that is a fair picture. It is just that danger which makes me unwilling to dogmatise. I think we should be rash in coming forthwith to a conclusion on this matter. I am only telling the House what has been told me. Moreover, a private individual who gives up his trade and independence to a large company will have the greatest difficulty in ever re-
covering it again. We must be sure, before we urge people into a collective system, that they will get benefit from it.
I would say in reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) that I do not think it can entirely be said that the extra takings of English vessels are offset by the extra costs. The board have a paragraph on the point. In paragraph 45 they say:
When statements on the above lines have appeared in the Press they have been met


by the criticism that a comparison of gross earnings leads to fallacious conclusions and by the suggestion that the English owners of vessels and nets and the English crews are no better off in the long run for their longer and more intensive fishing because their extra earnings are all absorbed by"—
I think that that was the hon. Member's point—
additional expenses.
They give figures to show that that is not entirely borne out, at least by arithmetic, since they show that:
the English owner has more than two-and-a-half times as much money available to meet the costs of maintenance and repair of his vessel and nets, depreciation and overhead charges as had his Scottish competitor.
I do not think that this discussion is yet settled, but in drawing attention to these comparative figures, the Board have performed a valuable service to the industry, and more particularly to those of us who are interested in the Scottish industry. Here is a point to which this House, the industry and the Herring Industry Board will need to devote attention. It is no use saying that we should get out of our difficulties by some grant, or subsidy or other. The difficulty lies far deeper. It has been suggested in a memorial put forward that a subsidy should be granted to the herring industry. That is a very curious remedy, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), who has so often, and quite rightly, inveighed against selling milk to Czechoslovakia at a price lower than that at which we can get it over here, would also comment on the fact if, by reason of a subsidy, we were selling to Continental nations, either to Russia or to Germany, herring at prices below those at which the poorer people in this country could get them.

Mr. Boothby: There is this difference. The Germans and the Russians like raw salt herring and our people will not eat them.

Mr. Elliot: I would not like to be given the task of justifying to an unemployed man in Bridgeton the selling of herring to Russia at half the price at which I was willing to sell it to him. It has often been suggested that in some way or other we should deal with the question of gluts by picking out the poorer classes of the community and making the herring available to them at cheaper prices.

But we might run into very considerable difficulty. That seems to be getting pretty close to the old theory of relief in kind. We have to sell herring to people because they like herring, and not because we have got a lot of herring and want to get rid of it. There is nothing that the unemployed would resent more than feeling that they were the dumping ground for some surplus food product.

Mr. Gallacher: You try it.

Mr. Elliot: I can imagine the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) making a very effective speech on the subject.

Mr. Thorne: That does not apply to feeding necessitous children.

Mr. Elliot: You cannot feed necessitous children on raw salt herring. I can imagine nothing which would upset a child more.
We must make every effort to develop the export market, but also I do not take the view of the memorialists, that the home market is saturated and cannot absorb more herring. I think there is every reason to think that it can absorb more herring. We are more likely to find an outlet there than before especially now that times are more prosperous and there is more employment about and more purchasing power in the hands of the people. The northern half of the industry is taking less fish and less money than the southern half, and the northern half is less highly organised than the southern half. Would the northern half be willing to work under the mere highly organised conditions of the south and take more fish and more money? The Board do not come to a conclusion on that point and I am disinclined to come to a conclusion on that point myself. I shall consider very carefully the further investigations of the Board, and I shall especially value the opinions of hon. and right hon. Members of this House.
The fact is that the industry is undoubtedly still in a very serious position. At the same time, the position is not without hope. The value of herring landed in Great Britain went up from £1,519,000 in 1934, to £1,960,000 in 1935, and to £2,406,000 in 1936. Between 1934 and 1936 the increase was over £800,000, or 33 per cent. It is the same for the earnings of the average


drifter, even for the Scottish drifter. In 1934 the average earnings were £915, and in 1936 they were £1,685. It, therefore, seems that the position, though difficult, has hopeful features in it, and it is clear that there is a living in the herring industry for many thousands of our own people. It is to the improvement of their position and to the extension of the industry that the Committee, Parliament and the Herring Board must bend all their efforts in the immediate future.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I move the reduction with a view to calling attention to the perilous plight of the herring industry in Scotland and the extraordinary document which has been issued by the Herring Industry Board. I have never read a more depressing White Paper. It goes to the length of discussing whether our great herring industry may some day be lost to us. It is a document the writers of which spend most of their time in trying to prove that nothing can be done for the industry. Every proposal that is put to them for aiding the industry in the difficult times through which it is passing is politely pushed aside for one reason or another. That attitude the right hon. Gentleman has endorsed this afternoon, with the exception of his closing sentences.
What is the position in which we find ourselves? I spent some time yesterday in the Library looking through the census figures, and I noticed that in the county of Aberdeen the fishing population has fallen by one-third in the last 10 years. I looked at the report of the Ministry of Fisheries for June of this year and I saw that 70 trawlers were laid up in Aberdeen Harbour. We have it officially stated that the Buckie herring fleet is only now at one-half its pre-War strength and that it is disappearing at such a rate that in five years it will have disappeared altogether. One drifter goes every 10 days. Steam drifters are disappearing at the rate of 12½ per cent. per annum, and the value of the fishing fleet is falling by £68,000 per annum. What is the remedy? What are we told this afternoon? There are 58,000 workers employed in the industry either at sea or on shore. I am not sure whether that

figure includes the workers employed in curing, but leaving aside the question of whether or not the curers are included, it is a fact that the men, women and children depending upon the industry number somewhere about 250,000 persons. Yet the Herring Fishery Board in regard to herring, which are our greatest catch, have nothing positive to offer, nothing immediate, nothing really hopeful to put before us.
I want to devote myself this afternoon to constructive rather than destructive criticism. I have no reason to contradict what the right hon. Gentleman said about the personnel of the Herring Board. I know nothing about them personally. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has views on the personality of the Board and perhaps he will state them. It is not with the individuals that I am concerned. I want to see whether it is possible within what we call the capitalist method of production and distribution to find a better living for the people who are now engaged in this industry. If it is not possible to continue as we are doing, with competing sections operating for profit and all failing in the process, is it possible to suggest alternative methods?
I have been at some pains to go into this matter. There are two markets for our herring, the home market and the foreign market. The home market is, roughly, one-third of the total. Obviously, the remedy that must be applied or sought for must be different. In regard to the home market the right hon. Gentleman has dismissed, with some rather injudicious phrases, the idea that we should supply any herring surplus to the normal quantities that the markets can take, cheaply to the needy and the poor who cannot purchase at present prices. He
said it would be an insult to the poor—I did not take down his words exactly—to ask them to consume this food at lower prices. I dispute that entirely. It is no insult to the poor to consume cheaper milk either in schools or elsewhere. It is no insult to the poor to get reductions in house rents.
It is a vital necessity both to consumers and producers that there should be as few barriers as possible between the worker who produces good food and the empty stomachs in our industrial areas. I have heard all sorts of fancy objections put up against a scheme of that kind. I am told


that we cannot maintain a permanent system of distribution to deal with occasional surpluses or exceptional gluts. That is true, and nobody has ever proposed anything of the sort. Last Friday I met a number of directors of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, with their fishery buyers, and I have had a letter from them this morning confirming what was said to me last Friday. Here is the greatest trading organisation in Scotland—whether one likes co-operative societies or private traders does not matter—with agencies in every industrial town, and every industrial village in Scotland and the co-operative wholesale society directors—I can give the right hon. Gentleman the secretary's letter to me—declare that they are willing to place their great organisation at the disposal of the Secretary of State, to ask for no profit at all, in order to deal with this question of occasional surplus and to see to it that these surpluses reach the stomachs of the poor in the depressed areas at the minimum possible price. That is not an offer that can be derided. It is not an offer that the Secretary of State can turn aside with a joke about poor people, babies and toddlers eating salt herring.
Here are masses of our people not getting enough to eat, here is probably the most nutritious fish in the market, as the herring certainly is when it is fresh, and here are the hungry and distressed fishing population. It is our duty to organise production and distribution in such a way that production shall not be for profit but for use, and we have the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society saying that they are willing to work a scheme without profit. I suggest to the Secretary of State that without further ado he should get one or two of the very able young civil servants on his staff, than whom there are none abler in Whitehall—they are not a band of no-men such as they collect at the Treasury; they are men with open and agile minds, willing to break new ground—and send them to negotiate with the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society and see what is in the proposal.

Mr. Loftus: Is the proposal to distribute fresh herring during periods of glut or to salt and distribute them?

Mr. Johnston: I am talking about fresh herring during periods of glut. I said

that the herring when it is fresh is the most nutritious fish. The Secretary of State said that only 1 per cent. of our herring catch was thrown back into the sea in 1936. That may be true, but it does not face up to the fact that you are deliberately restricting your market. That is the policy of the Herring Industry Board. You are buying up trawlers and vessels and destroying vessels. You are limiting the output in every possible way, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that only 1 per cent. of the fish caught are destroyed that does not meet the whole difficulty. The point is that the fishing population is steadily on the decline and that you are throwing more and more upon the Poor Law and public assistance at a time when the people ought to eat more fish.
I should like briefly to refer to the export market. I want to keep strictly to my time limit in order to set a good example to other hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman told us something about the Russian and German purchases. Here, again, he ought to send his ablest civil servants. I do beg of him not to accept these cast-iron, individualistic, nonsensical stories that are being handed out. I have been to the Russian buying organisation in London this week. I had a discussion with the officials, and I have the figures. I have the inside story of prices. I know what they are paying for their herring and I know what they are willing to negotiate upon. We sold to Russia last year 4,450 tons of fish. I cannot translate it into crans and barrels. They bought 10,330 tons from Holland and 6,280 tons from Norway. For the 6,280 tons from Norway they paid about 650,000 roubles less than they had to pay for our 4,450 tons. There is something to be looked into here, something to be examined. I have seen their papers and I am prepared to stand by these figures. You cannot develop a trade on those lines.
What are the Russians prepared to do? If the right hon. Gentleman can organise something in the nature of a co-operative organisation among the fishermen and curers in Scotland, the Russians are willing to deal with them on this basis, that they will take at the normal market price whatever it is, a bigger proportion of the catch at that price than they bought last year. The right hon. Gentleman hardly did justice to the Russian market. It is


true that they bought 20,000 barrels last year, but there have been years when they have bought 700,000 barrels, and 750,000 barrels.

Mr. Macquisten: How long ago?

Mr. Johnston: I think that was in 1911. This is a great market, an almost unlimited market. They are willing to take salted fish, the peasants like it, and they are willing to pay for it. In 1931 I was set the task in the Labour Government of trying to get trade going quickly, and I induced the Russian Government to give us £6,000,000 of orders for the engineering firms in this country, and I got credits extended to Russian trade. They are willing to take more barrels of any alleged surplus at a lower rate, which can be agreed upon. We have sold herring to Russia at 22s. 6d. a barrel, the price last year was 26s. It is always fluctuating. Why not give a firm deal to these people. They are not fools. If they can buy herring cheaper in Norway and Holland they will do so; but they are friendly disposed to us. Credits have been extended; and all the credits granted by the Government have not been eaten up. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will send one or two of his staff to discuss the matter with Mr. Bogomoloff, Mr. Pickman and Dr. Segal of the Russian delegation, and the appalling state of affairs on our Scottish coasts can be tackled. It can only be tackled by co-operation at both ends. Individualism must go. Waste within the industry must disappear. If the Government will examine the problem on these lines then the expectation printed in a Government document that "the day may come when we shall see the last of our herring industry," need no longer be printed in a Government publication.

4.49 P.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I join with the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) in protesting against the pessimism in regard to the future which marks the report of the Herring Board, and also in emphasising the present depression in the industry. There is the formidable paragraph on page 6 of the report where they point out that:
When the proper deductions from the total revenue realised by the catchers are made for the value of herrings caught by trawlers, ring-netters and inshore fishermen the amount remaining is not sufficient for the

maintenance of the main drifting fleet and their crews.
It is from that that all the ills of the herring fishery flow, The unemployment figures in these ports are tremendous. In Wick it is 28 per cent., Peterhead 21 per cent., Buckie 20 per cent., Lerwick 20 per cent., and Stornoway 43·8 per cent. These percentages were for the period when the herring fishing season was getting into its stride—the end of June. A few months before they were much worse. At the beginning of July there was a total collapse of the industry in some places, and in Wick, one of the principal fishing ports in Scotland, there was one day when only three arrivals of herring fishing boats took place. What are the causes? The report points out a number of them. There is first the lack of resillience in the home market. I have always doubted whether the home market would fulfil the expectations which many hon. Members have expressed, and actually, in spite of all the efforts made by the Board, the consumption at home declined last year from 491,000 cran to 473,000 cran. Nevertheless, the Board point out that you cannot judge by one year's efforts, and it is reasonable to suppose that these efforts will show greater fruits in later years. They mean to continue them, and I wish them luck, but at the same time I hope they will consider new ideas such as that of working with the Co-operative Wholesale Society as suggested for by the right hon. Member for West Stirling. It was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman in a speech of a quarter of an hour to develop the ideas he has, but I hope the Secretary of State will go carefully into the prospect of developing the home market on the lines suggested by him.
I was not cinvinced by what the Secretary of State said that the poor would regard it as an insult to have herring at a cheap price. We have a milk scheme to give people, who cannot afford to pay the ordinary prices of milk, cheap milk, and a potato scheme was tried in one depressed area. Why cannot we have a herring scheme? I do not suggest that the Government should rush into a great scheme embracing the whole country next week, but, at any rate, let us have an experimental scheme and it may be that something may come out of the proposal put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. Why cannot we have an experimental


scheme on these lines in some great centre of population for the sale of herring at cheap prices to the unemployed, and to those who cannot afford to buy them at the ordinary market price? At any rate, I am sure that it is only on lines such as these that you will be able to develop the home market. I doubt very much whether it is capable of much development on normal lines. But far more important is the need for developing the foreign market. The Board point out in paragraph 83 that:
It is impossible to increase trade with certain countries because of the existence of import duties which when added to the cost of production, processing and transport make the price almost prohibitive to the local population.
That, of course, is another illustration of the fact that the tariff as a bargaining weapon has completely failed to make room for our exports in foreign countries. The Board also point out the need for lower catching and curing costs. That is a fundamental question, whether you are going to sell in the home market or in the foreign market. High prices, the Board point out in paragraphs scattered all over their report, have proved an obstacle to them in developing the home and foreign markets. The Secretary of State referred to the development of fishing fleets by Germany. That, of course, is part of their policy of autarchy upon which they have embarked. Dr. Schacht declares that they have done so unwillingly and that they would much prefer to enter into a policy for the general lowering of trade barriers and a revival of overseas trade. In short, the main lesson to be drawn from the Herring Board's report is that no industry stands to gain more—both by a reduction of its costs and by entry into foreign markets—from a policy of economic disarmament and freer trade than the herring fishing industry, and I wish I could believe that there was any prospect of the Government throwing itself into this policy, to which they constantly pay lip-service, with that energy and resolution and even that measure of ruthlessness which it requires for success.
Of course, of the foreign markets, Russia is the most important. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Russians were able to buy Dutch and Norwegian herring cheaper than Scottish herring. So can anybody else.

They are not so valuable an article. Their price on the world market is lower than the price of Scottish herring. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should reorganise our fishing industry and assist in the development of its marketing organisation, but if he means that we are to recast our system in order to meet the views and convenience of the Russians I do not see why we should do that. It is only if he means that we should impart into our marketing arrangements the maximum degree of efficiency and deal with the Russians on level terms that I entirely agree.
As a matter of fact, one of the difficulties of dealing with Russia has been that they drive too hard a bargain. It has more than once happened that when the Board has tried to make a bargain at a certain price the Russians have refused it and afterwards they have come back and bought herring at the very price at which they were first offered them by the Board some months earlier. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that we must put our own house in order, make ourselves as efficient as we can, but I would also say to the trading representatives of Russia to whose courtesy I should like to pay a tribute, or perhaps to say to their masters, that really in these troublous times in which we are living, when it is of vital importance that there should be friendship between the great Russian people and the people of these islands in the defence of great interests which we hold in common, it would be good policy if they would abandon their efforts to cut down the price of herring to the last shilling, and show their willingness to co-operate with us in restoring this industry which means so much to us in Scotland and to our people generally. They would be doing a good stroke of policy for Russia and for a better understanding between the two peoples.
In their report the Herring Board also draw attention to another problem, and that is the recruitment of women workers. It is getting more difficult to get women workers into the industry. Much has been done to improve the conditions of their work and I hope more will be done in the future. One of the difficulties is the difficulty about the unemployment insurance regulations. The women workers feel that the regulations are not fair. I do not intend to speak further on that matter,


because it is not really a matter for which the Secretary of State is responsible; but as it greatly affects the interests of the fishing industry, for whose welfare the right hon. Gentleman is so largely responsible, I ask him to consult his colleague the Minister of Labour on that point, which is brought to our attention in the report of the Board.
Time does not permit me to follow the Secretary of State in detail into his analysis of the Board's statement about the comparative earnings of Scottish and English boats, but there are one or two remarks I would like to make on that, and I will do as the right hon. Gentleman so prudently did, and refrain from dogmatism. The Board's comments, and the comments made in certain letters and articles which appeared in the "Daily Mail" newspaper two or three weeks ago, seem to me to be unfair to the Scottish drifters and to show too little regard for the peculiarity of their circumstances. Scottish fishermen hold firmly to the system of individual and family ownership of their boats, or ownership by partners belonging to the local community. They would regard the prospects of company ownership with repugnance, for reasons connected with circumstances and traditions with which I fully sympathise. I would add that I do not believe that these English boats, which are supposed to be so successful, are all run by big companies.

Mr. Loftus: Hear, hear.

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) supports me. Many of them are owned by families and by quite small partnerships. It would be interesting to know whether the big companies in England are any more successful than these small partnerships. Moreover, in paragraph 38 it is pointed out that when the Scottish fishing boats meet the English boats on level terms, they get as good earnings as the English do; there is a difference of only £100 less for the Scottish—and their season was shorter. Another point to be remembered about the English boats is that their debts are much higher than the debts of Scottish boats. The English communities are much more deeply in debt. Therefore, we ought to approach the subject with care, and I was delighted that the Secretary of State refused to dogmatise about it and that he

is keeping an open mind; but I would certainly lay it down that an alteration in the Scottish system of boat ownership ought not to be a condition of help from the State in the re-organisation of the fishing fleet.
What of future policy? First of all, it is vitally necessary to have new boats. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling pointed out, the boats are now rapidly going out of use. There must be help in renewing the fleet. Moreover, the continual contraction of the fishing fleet is very dangerous from the standpoint of National Defence, a subject on which I have spoken before and which I will not elaborate now. Nevertheless I suggest to the Secretary of State that he might tell us whether there is any prospect of a retaining fee being paid to the owners of drifters who are prepared to hold them at the service of the State in the event of war. The mere re-conditioning of old drifters will not help. New boats are necessary. They cost about £6,000 each, and substantial help is required.
Secondly, a new sort of drifter is required. I have argued that for some years past, and I am glad to see that at last the Board are taking steps on these lines. Motor power will increasingly take the place of steam power, unless this new kind of steam drifter can be evolved. I hope that money will be available for experiments, and that a certain amount of priority will be given to them, even in these difficult times when so much of the Government's resources is being devoted to Defence expenditure. Thirdly, I venture to say that too many restrictions are being issued by the Herring Board. Pages of this report are devoted to a list of all the restrictions which have been put on the work of the industry. We need to increase production and thus ease the burden of overhead charges. I hope that some such scheme as working with the Co-operative Society, if it will indeed help to get rid of surpluses and expand the home market, will assist towards that end.
In conclusion, I notice that the Board is to visit Scottish parts. I am sorry that Wick does not appear to be included in the itinerary, but I hope that that omission will yet be repaired. In my


opinion, the Board ought not to return from Scotland, but ought to stay there, for that is its right place. One of the worst things in the report is to be found on page 2 where the address of the Board is given—184, Strand, London. The Board ought to be in Edinburgh, for this herring fishing industry is much more a Scottish interest than it is an English interest. The powers of the Board should be extended, for it can do little at the present time except restrict. In England, with all its great industries—in London, the hub of the world's commerce—the herring fishing industry may well seem insignificant and almost a superfluity, but it is indispensable to the economic life of Scotland. Let the Board throw off its pessimism and have faith in the future of the industry, and resolution to promote its revival.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Harbord: Hon. Members are aware of the serious plight of the great herring industry. As is pointed out by the Board, that industry was placed in difficulties after the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, but those difficulties were overcome largely because of a greater demand from the Continent. Of recent years, however, a lesser demand has adversely affected the industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) said that Russia would be our good friend in the matter of buying herring, but my experience has been that the Russians try to cut down to the lowest possible figure the price they pay for our herring, which are of superior quality to the Norwegian herring. Incidentally, it must be remembered that the Norwegian fishermen catch the herring in the Fjords, which are quite near, and that they catch them in great volume, so that their catching costs are not as heavy as those which face our fishermen in the North Sea and elsewhere.
I ask the Government to give extended powers to the Board. I do not complain of the Board, for I believe that its chairman and members, faced with a difficult task, have conscientiously tried to better the conditions of all classes who are engaged in the herring industry. In my opinion, the Scottish boats are not kept in such good state as English boats; the English boats are better preserved than the Scottish boats. While I do not say

that a complete reconditioning scheme could be adopted in the case of the fishing boats, there are certain classes of boats which have been well kept and well maintained and which, by wise expenditure, could be fitted to continue fishing.
I feel that the Government are unmindful of their obligations to the fishing industry. They have been most generous to the agricultural industry, giving it subsidies on meat, beet, wheat and beef, and excusal in the matter of rates, but when the suggestion is made that some subsidy should be given to the fishing community for purchasing new boats or reconditioning existing boats, every obstacle is placed in the way. During the Great War the fishing industry did great service to the country by minesweeping and mine-laying in all kinds of seas, in all conditions of rough weather, and with great loss of life. The work which those brave fellows did placed the Government under a great obligation to them. They helped to prevent the country from being starved into submission to its enemies. We need these fishermen as an auxiliary of our Navy.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) suggested that Germany would welcome arrangements which would promote freer trade, but I am doubtful whether that is so. By increased taxation of our imports they made it more difficult. Why are the Germans building their fishing fleet with such rapidity? It is because it will be an auxiliary of their navy and increase their armed strength. Russia is also building a fishing fleet. The difficulties which face our fishing industry are greater and harder than any which it has ever experienced before. The Government have not risen to the occasion. They have not sufficient faith in their own child, the Herring Industry Board. I urge them to give extended powers to that Board. The Government have such facilities of borrowing money at their disposal that they could scrap all the obsolete vessels at once and replace them by a smaller type of Diesel vessel, which as has been proved by recent experience, is more likely to be profitable and useful to the community. Such boats could be worked much more economically, thus puting the industry in a better condition to meet its competitors in foreign markets.
That help is due to that brave class of men whose bravery, heroism and sacrifice in the service of their country during the Great War earned such praise from Earl Beatty and Viscount Jellicoe. I am one of those who have not lost faith in the home market. I think it could be better exploited, and that there could be a greater consumption of British herring in this country. I do not think a sufficiently long time has passed for us to be able to judge the value of the publicity campaign. I believe that that campaign will have good results, and will lead to a greater consumption of herring by our people. I do not know whether the question of selling herring to Canada has been given sufficient attention. I should have thought that by the establishment of agencies there and by the use of various types of refrigerating craft it would be possible to send herring to Canada at a time when they would be very acceptable there. It is on those lines that assistance can be given to the industry. I thank the Fishing Industry Board for what they have done. I think they ought to receive encouragement rather than blame and that they ought to be backed up with greater financial assistance.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I sometimes wonder to myself whether a rigid time-limit in these Debates is a good thing. This is the first occasion on which the herring fishing industry, which is vital to my constituency, has been discussed for a long time; and probably it will be the last for a long time to come. I could not help being impressed by the effect of the time limit on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). All the way through, it seemed to me, he was on the brink of making an interesting speech; but just when he was coming to the point he would look at the clock and say, "I have not time to develop that point now."

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the hon. Member mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not make an interesting speech?

Mr. Boothby: At all events I am going to make an interesting speech. It took me 18½minutes to make it in my bedroom this morning, and it will probably take me 22 minutes here; but I ask the indulgence of the Committee, because of

the importance of this subject to my constituents.

Mr. Johnston: Will the hon. Member permit me to say that while he and every other hon. Member of the Committee has of course the right to speak, it should be recognised that the only possible way of allowing all those who wish to take part in the Debate to do so, is by agreement among hon. Members themselves? I would beg the hon. Member, who will have other opportunities of raising this matter, not to upset the arrangement.

Mr. Boothby: As far as I am concerned there never was an arrangement. I do not know of any arrangement. I only say this, that the herring fishing industry is discussed here once a year at the most; and to limit hon. Members who represent herring fishing constituencies to a quarter of an hour is not a very good plan. This time-limit is bad all round from the Scottish point of view, because hon. Members speak with their eyes on the clock and are in consequence unable to develop coherent arguments. However, as I have never signed anything on the dotted line as regards any agreement of the kind, I am going to make my speech or die in the attempt.
The first question for the Government to decide is whether or not this industry is worth preserving in the national interest. Germany, Holland and Norway have all subsidised their herring fishing fleets; and this is a matter to which the Government ought to give very serious consideration. I do not think that this or any other Government in this country can contemplate with equanimity the possible destruction of our herring fishing fleet. It was vital to our defence in the War. Like the right hon. Gentleman opposite I have already said so much on this subject that I need not repeat it, and tributes have been paid by high naval authorities to the usefulness of the fishing fleet in preserving the safety of the battle-fleet while it was in harbour. It is not so much the craft as the personnel of the fishing fleet that is of vital importance. The men are, as is generally admitted, magnificent seamen; and on any ground on which the matter may be considered, their services will be vital to the national safety should war ever come upon us again. The first request which I make to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that he should direct the attention


of the Minister of Defence to this aspect of the question, and I am sure that if the Minister of Defence consults the Admiralty he will come to the conclusion that the preservation of the personnel of the fishing fleet, at least, is essential to the national safety.
Now I come to the report. It has not been very well received. "Disappointing" is scarcely the word for it. It really is nothing more than a despairing wail, and contains no constructive suggestion of any kind. I have in my constituency an admirable local paper which is entirely non-political and takes no party view, the "Buchan Observer" published in Peterhead; and in a leading article in that paper this week I find these words:
Discouragement is writ all over the second Annual Report of the Board for which nobody in the industry or out of it appears to have a kind word to say. The Board has failed and the sooner this sad fact is acknowledged officially and acted upon, the better it will be for the industry and for the pocket of the taxpayers, because the simple truth is that the Board is not earning its keep.
That is a comment by an impartial local newspaper representative of a town which is greatly interested in the conduct of the herring industry. I think it no exaggeration to say that the report has been a bitter disappointment to all those who entertained great hopes of the Board when it was first set up.
The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question which I put to him on Tuesday, said that the whole of this year's cure had been sold and appeared to derive great satisfaction from that fact. But, as he knows, to anyone who is not conversant with the facts of the industry that was a rather misleading reply. Of course, the cure up to date has been sold. It amounts to 194,762 barrels as against 268,873 barrels last year—an unusually poor fishing to date. As I said just now, in an interjection, the June and July herring which are caught off the coast of Scotland are regarded on the Continent as the cream of the year's catch. And as neither the Dutch nor the Icelandic fishings have then begun to come on the market, it is always easy to get rid of this early part of the year's catch. The difficulty comes later when the other big fishings come into the market and the autumn fishing cure has to be disposed of. I must also point out that there are

160 fewer drifters engaged in the Scottish fishing this year; and that Stronsay and Wick have practically been eliminated from the summer fishing. I do not think, therefore, we can take any satisfaction out of the fact that these 190,000 odd barrels have been disposed of, at prices which are not particularly remunerative to the curers, if we take the average of the whole lot. It is to the difficulties which lie ahead that I would direct attention. The report states:
If our trade in pickled herring is to be developed and increased, the price of herring must be lower and in order that this may be achieved a reduction in the costs of production is essential.
How are we to achieve that reduction? In pre-War days, we sold £1,000,000 worth of herring to Russia alone every year. We have now to deal with a very different, and a very difficult, situation. We are dealing with autarchic countries, with Germany and Russia, and with Poland which is also more or less an autarchic country. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland went rather far when he tried to persuade us that there was a throbbing urge among the leaders of Nazi Germany towards economic cooperation and a revival of Free Trade. I think Dr. Schacht holds very different views from those who are his masters at the present time, which makes his position doubly difficult. There is only one way of dealing with these countries as far as international trade is concerned, and that is by the establishment of strong centralised selling organisations on this side. To some extent, old-fashioned individualism has to give way when it come to trading with these autarchic countries overseas, where there is absolute Government control over all imports. "Single control of an ironclad character," was the phrase used by the Secretary of State in referring to these countries; and I suggest we require something of the kind upon this side if we are to sell our herring to them successfully.
There should be established a central selling organisation with wide powers to buy and sell under the general direction of the Herring Industry Board, especially at the end of the season, after the million barrel cure has been reached, and when things become really difficult. I support what has been said to the effect that the Government will have to back up the


Board in dealing with both Russia and Germany. I do not think that even the Board is powerful enough to deal with these great importing organisations in Germany and Russia which have behind them the whole weight and power of their Governments. It is necessary to bring political pressure to bear. If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite meant anything as far as Russia is concerned, he really suggested in polite language that we ought to put a political squeeze on the Russians to make them buy our herring, and I must say that I support him in that. After all, we have lent them £10,000,000 and some of that might well be spent on our herring, and we might suggest to them quite politely that unless they do spend some of it on herring we might be less solicitous in the future about the Ukraine than we would be in other circumstances. I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness was really driving at although he did not quite like to go so far.
There is another point. I know that the Secretary of State is naturally a little touchy on the subject of bacon quotas. I have never been crazy about them myself, and I am informed by people of responsibility and knowledge in the herring trade, that the bacon quotas at present imposed upon Poland and Denmark and some of the Scandinavian and Baltic States are operating against our herring industry, and that if some modification of these quotas could be achieved, it would be very advantageous to the industry. I would, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to look into this matter very carefully, and see if something cannot be done.
And while we are dealing with the international aspect of the industry I would again point out that the Fishery Board itself has urged that the cost of production should be reduced as far as possible. We are not coming here to ask for subsidies right, left and centre; but there is one subsidy which would be of immense value, and would not be costly. A subsidy on coal. That is a practical matter which the Herring Board might take into consideration. The price of fuel has risen very sharply in the last six months, and it affects the price of herring. It enters directly into the cost of production. The Government have a precedent in that connection. They have

given a rebate on the oil fuel tax to all fishing fleets. Would it not be possible for them, in conjunction with the Herring Board to examine the proposition of a Government subsidy on coal supplied directly to the drifters of the fishing fleet? I know of no other method which would so quickly reduce the cost of production.
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling seems to be growing a little uneasy, but I think that, even under his arrangement, I have still a few minutes left; and I would like to refer to the home market. Here again the question of price is important and so is the question of transport. I wish to ask why the Herring Board has not got into touch with three organisations, namely, the railway companies, the cooperative societies—and in that connection I am in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman opposite—and, last but not least, the organisation of the Commissioner for the Special Areas. When the Secretary of State says that you cannot give herring to necessitous children, I want to know why. There is no more nutritious food in the world. The right hon. Gentleman is a doctor and he ought to know that, apart from milk, it would do these children more good than any other food. I think it extraordinary that there is no mention in the report of any effort by the Board to get into touch with the three organisations which could help most effectively in the distribution of herring in this country. They do not seem to have made any attempt to reduce transport charges. They have never tackled the railways, or the co-operative societies, or the Commissioner for the Special Areas. As I say, it is a sideline by comparison with the foreign market; but it is nevertheless important.
To come back to the main issue, the consumption of raw salt herring is what the herring industry, in Scotland at any rate, is going in the end to stand or fall by; and that is, unfortunately perhaps, confined to a single area in Europe. It is most noticeable and interesting that the only valuable extensions of the market for raw salt herring during recent years have taken place in the United States of America and in Palestine, which are the two places to which these Northern and Central European populations have migrated on a large scale. Unless you tackle these markets, I do not think you


will make a great extension of the market for salt herring elsewhere.
With regard to the fleet itself, the Duncan Committee, upon the recommendation of which the Herring Board was set up, wrote:
To allow the fleet to continue to adjust itself by a process of attrition would be, in our judgment, a cruel and wasteful policy. … Orderly contraction of the fleet is imperative.
I do not think the Board have quite carried out that recommendation. They have been too prone to allow the process of attrition to operate, in the cruellest possible way. They should be given powers, I submit to the right hon. Gentleman, to purchase obsolete drifters at a reasonable price, and to make reconditioning grants for a limited number of good drifters. I think the Treasury control over the Board at the present moment is too tight. It is indeed the only excuse for this miserable report that I can see; but there is no doubt that the Treasury did insist upon the last levy on the industry, which I understand the Herring Board were reluctant to impose, and they insisted also that any grants should be a first mortgage on the boats, taking priority even of the banks. That is too hard. My right hon. Friend had a tremendous success with the Treasury when he was Minister of Agriculture. He clawed millions and millions out of them then, and he has not been too bad since, so far as oats are concerned. Let him concentrate, so far as the Treasury is concerned, on herring for the next six months; and if he cannot get a direct subsidy, at any rate get them to ease up a hit; because the one excuse that the Board has got to offer for its present doleful report, is that the Treasury has been pretty stiff.
Some hon. Members have made a good deal of the disparity—and the report also makes a good deal of it—between the earnings of the Scottish and the English drifters, amounting to over £1,000 per boat in the autumn season. The report says that the English crews on an average earned £47 7s. for 13 weeks' work in the autumn fishing last year, as against £21 6s. that the Scottish fisherman earned for his period of 8½ weeks. Whatever anyone may say, that disparity is much too great, and there must be some cause for it. I think it is due to some extent

to Sunday fishing, but if the Scottish fishermen are determined not to fish on Sundays, that is their look-out. You cannot force people to fish on Sundays, and they must be prepared to accept the sacrifice involved. But there is something more than Sunday fishing in this. What is it? Is it that the whole system of share-ownership has failed? Is it, as the right hon. Member for West Stirling said, that individualism in this industry has got to go? It may be—I do not know—but the report says:
It would clearly be futile to put the vessels into good order and provide efficient nets and gear without at the same time making provision for maintaining them in that condition  So far as co-operation is concerned there can be little doubt that the cause of some at least of the troubles of the Scottish steam drifting industry lies in the fact that the individuals or small groups of individuals who own the vessels and nets possess as a rule slender financial resources and are liable to become embarrassed by comparatively minor accidents and misfortunes, which would hardly affect organisations of greater magnitude and financial resources. There seems to be no reason for doubting that appreciable advantage would be gained by the adoption of some form of pooling of resources or co-operation.
I agree with every word of that, but the incredible thing is that there is not one single constructive suggestion in the report as to what form of pooling or cooperation should be carried out. For my part, I think, quite frankly, that the time has come when some form of cooperative company-ownership will have to be tried in Scotland. I have here a draft scheme, which I propose to submit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Had it not been for the right hon. Member for West Stirling, I had proposed to give the Committee a brief outline of the proposals which it contains, but I shall spare hon. Members that. I do ask my right hon. Friend to consider these proposals as a constructive effort to solve the problem. It is, roughly speaking, a scheme by which the Herring Board and the fishermen should join together in the co-operative ownership of a company to construct new vessels and to purchase supplies of fuel, nets, and other supplies through one central source, and thus derive the advantages which a large organisation must have as against small individual owners, so far as financial accommodation and all the rest of it are concerned. There is no element of compulsion about the scheme, and there is


no obligation on fishermen to enter into it. There is no question of a fisherman who does not enter it being deprived of any of the advantages of Government policy. But it is a constructive effort to solve the problem presented by the present system of share-ownership in Scotland, and, as such, I suggest that it deserves the serious attention of my right hon. Friend.
In conclusion, while I have nothing to say against the individual members of the Herring Board, I think that on the whole it is a mistake to have so many members of a Board with a direct trade bias. The present members of the Herring Board have too many axes to grind, not their own axes, but the axes of the interests which they represent. There are too many sectional interests in the industry to be conciliated; and, in the nature of things in this particular industry, those different sections of the industry are often opposed to one other. I think it is time for plain speaking, and I propose to speak quite plainly in these last few sentences. This difficulty might be overcome if there were really strong direction and control at the top; but there is no such direction at present, and the result is a kind of tug-of-war on the Board between the conflicting interests which the members represent, and which ends too often in paralysis and in failure to make constructive recommendations of any kind, lest they should offend or upset one particular section of the industry.
You want somebody—and I really do believe this—who is prepared to cut through all the vested interests—and they are many and great—who can see the industry and visualise its problems as a whole, and who is not afraid, if necessary, to be ruthless. You want somebody like the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George); and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would not consider asking him to render a last and supreme service to his country by accepting the chairmanship of this Board. I used to think, in the old days, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland first went to the Ministry of Agriculture that he himself had some of these characteristics, that he was prepared to drive forward ruthlessly, and cleave his way through all vested interests. I have not altogether abandoned that hope; but I must say that recently,

and especially in view of his apparent defence of this report—which he knows as well as I do is quite indefensible—that that hope has been fading a little. I believe, and apparently the present members of the Board do not, that this industry can be saved. It is capable of being saved, but it wants vigorous action, direction, drive, and courage, to do it. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to get a move on one way or another before it is too late; for the sands are running out.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will keep an open mind towards the suggestions which have been made to him. We who represent fishing constituencies have always been very much concerned that there is no Minister of Fisheries in Scotland. Why, I do not know, but the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) might be prepared to undertake the task. I hope the Secretary of State will recognise his prime and almost sole responsibility to this House for the fishing industry in Scotland. Indeed, it is in a most parlous plight. It is true that, so far as the constituency which I represent is concerned, the herring fishery plays only a small part in it, but almost the same problems which are bringing ruin on the herring industry are bringing ruin on the white fish industry at the same time. Costs are rising up to about 50 per cent., prices are falling, and railway rates are rising. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has kept the one simple fact in his mind that the price received for fish on the wholesale market last March was 25 per cent. below, and the retail price on the fishmonger's slab was 100 per cent. above, the corresponding pre-war price. That is the absolute root and centre of the problem. It is in the costs arising between the time when the fish leaves the ship and the time when it is sold to the public, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to tackle that problem, I venture to predict that we shall remain saddled with this serious fishery problem.
I said that I hoped he would maintain an open mind, but I must say that I was not convinced that the right hon. Gentleman has shed all his prejudices. In years gone by he made very bold efforts to get away from party and political prejudice, but on this subject I am not so sure that he is not weary of well doing, because


when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) suggested that Russia should be supplied with herring at a cheap price, he was afraid to make himself responsible for that, lest the people of this country should complain that herring were being sold in Russia at a cheaper price than that at which they were being sold to them. Then, when my right hon. Friend made a converse suggestion to the effect that herring should be distributed at a low price to the working people of this country, who cannot afford to pay the full price, the right hon. Gentleman thought it might affront them as being offered fish at too cheap a price. We know that in the law there is a form called the alternative and inconsistent defence, the simplest form of which is, "I did not hit the man, but if I did, he deserved it." That will not really go down, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take with great seriousness the suggestions which have been made, even if they cut across the principle that private profit is to be the dominating factor in the distribution of fish. We have had a suggestion made from the Front Bench here, which was supported very ably by the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). Why, therefore, cannot the right hon. Gentleman tackle this question of the distribution of herring and white fish at the same time? I am convinced that if he does that, he will put his finger upon the root cause of the difficulties of the fishing industry.
Now I want to say a word or two about the relationship between the herring industry and the white fish industry. I was rather sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying they were at loggerheads. It is true that there is some small disagreement on details between the herring and the white fish industries, but there is no reason why there should be any serious rivalry between them. The quantity of herring caught by trawlers is small, and there is some good reason to think that the habits of herring caught by trawlers are of a distinctly different character. I myself have caught spawning herring on the bottom of an estuary or harbour 10 miles from the open sea, and there are places on the Welsh coast where you can catch herring in that

way. I say therefore there is no reason for ill-feeling between the herring fishermen and the trawl fishermen, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not do anything to foster such a disagreement. He ought to try to foster harmony between them, but if he takes measures, in endeavouring to solve the problems of one, which irritate the other. such as prohibiting trawling for herring by British trawlers and allowing foreign trawlers to dominate the herring industry, it will only make for as between the two classes of fishermen.
I must say a word on behalf of my own constituency. The position in Aberdeen, one of the largest fishing ports in the country, is deplorable. The decline in the income in the first six months of this year was at the rate of £180,000 per annum—a sum comparable to five or ten million pounds being lost in the City of London. What a howl there would be in the City of London, even from the hon. Member for East Aberdeen if there were such a loss. I venture to say that the wrath of the hon. Member would be equal to his wrath at the losses in the herring industry. Unless the Secretary of State is prepared to go to the root of this question, namely, marketing and distribution, preferably along the lines we have advocated, I am convinced that we shall never solve the problem.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I am inclined to agree that this is a colourless and broken-winded report. We do not think much of the Herring Board on the Clyde. I have a letter from the Clyde Fishermen's Association in which they say:
Our association feels strongly that the Board completely ignores us in all our representations and that they only pay attention to the representations of the Clyde Herring Merchants' Association, whose Secretary is also Secretary of the Clyde Area Committee of the Herring Industry Board. Except in regard to nets, the Board have absolutely ignored the interests of the Clyde fishermen. All their schemes have been to the exclusion of the fishing interests on the Clyde. Their schemes do not apply to any boats under 60 feet, and of course all the fishing skiffs on the Clyde are under 60 feet. The only representative for the West of Scotland on the Board is Mr. Gordon N. Davidson. He is a member of the Clyde Herring Merchants' Association. One would expect him to represent the fishermen on the Clyde, but at a conference at Edinburgh last year he made a statement that the herring caught by the ring net was inferior to the herring caught by the drifting net. All the Clyde fishermen are


ring net fishermen, and it is the view of most people that ring net herring are of a better quality than the drift net herring. The Clyde fishermen feel very strongly that they have not been getting a square deal and the Executive Committee of the Clyde Fishermen's Association is very worried as to the position.
That is their view, and, after all, these are the men on the spot; and I know that there are no finer fishermen and no finer herring caught than at Campbeltown. I can never understand why this delusion has got into the brains of both Front Benches that you can solve any real difficulties by appointing boards. You may have a number of very respectable and eminent citizens sitting thereon, but the real work is done by the officials whom they appoint; and whenever a new board, be it a marketing board or a herring board, begins, it does not get any of those clever young men that the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) spoke about. It takes in the failures and throw-outs of the commercial world to do the job for them. What good it is to take a number of these people to parasite on the industry is beyond me; but the theory that they can do good has spread over both parties and has fastened like a form of infantile paralysis on their imaginations. The Board themselves are a very respectable body of bourgeois citizens, but they are not full-time men. It is the permanent ones who really matter, and if they were men of real capacity and not in need of their salaries, they would tell the Board that really there was very little purpose to be served by its existence.
I find the Board speaking in their report of the attempts they have made to improve kippers by having a close time for kippering; and they say they failed to achieve their object of preventing the sale of inferior kippers such as tend to prejudice the public taste. But the fish have been so bad since the War that the public taste for fish is dying back. I have a letter from a woman calling on God to bless me for taking up the matter of dyed kippers. She said she loved a good kipper or a good haddock, and she could not get them now. They were only fit to be tasted and then thrown out on to the dust heap, and her children said, "Don't buy any more fish, mother; it is no good." Fish is not good nowadays when it comes to be offered to the public. I do not know whether it is because of cold storage, or why it is. The hon.

Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) said that although the price to the fishermen had not gone up, the retail price had gone up 100 per cent. The cost of distributing fish is phenomenal—all due to the various channels and hands through which it passes. It is losing its freshness the longer it takes to reach the customer. The suggestion that the fish might be distributed through the co-operatives societies might be worth trying if it will secure fresh fish at diminished distributive costs to the people. They might even get surplus fish for distribution at nominal prices to those on the unemployed register. Better do that than throw it back into the sea. I never blame the fishermen for doing so. They are like the captain of a ship who jettisons part of the cargo to save the ship and the rest of the cargo. If they were to land the surplus the whole market would be glutted and their living would be taken away.
Why cannot these fish be pickled? The Minister for Defence should pickle an enormous stock of herring. During the War the people would have been very glad to get salt herring. Now, of course, they will not eat them. Why is there nothing in the report about the foul practice of dyeing kippers? I have been snowed under with letters since I introduced my Bill last Wednesday. All the writers pray that I may be successful. Some say they love a good kipper or Aberdeen haddock, but that the dyed variety gives them indigestion. Of course it does. The dye is a preservative. One man writes to me this horrible story:
Some time since, interested in my fellow man, I went through a factory where such wickedness was perpetrated. Amongst other things, I discovered that a consignment which had been deferred for a period, owing to the market being slow, that such herring being packed in wooden boxes after treatment, but in order to make sure that all was well, as a suspicion existed, on opening such boxes it was discovered the contents were providing food for maggots. The whole consignment had to be de-maggoted, redecorated with dye, and immediately sent to buyers for instant disposal.
Is not that a horrible story? And no one knows how often it is happening. A Member of the House told me that after only a mouthful of dyed kipper in a British railway train he had indigestion. The dye serves to preserve it and the very thing that preserves it makes it indigestible. Here is a really constructive idea. It is not a red herring drawn across the


trail; it is a real constructive proposal. The Board should take up the business of seeing that first-class kippering is engaged in. Several Members of the House have asked me where they can get a decent smoked kipper. They cannot find them. There are only a few people doing it now. A dyed kipper of course looks better than an honest kipper. Just as, according to Gresham's law, bad money drives out good, so bad kippers drive out good kippers. The dyed kipper is like the painted lady who may look better than the one who is not painted, but in my young days, before they all did, it was not considered so respectable. A young American friend of mine said to me the other day that if we liked to kipper in the way that the herring had been kippered which she had had for breakfast, the whole American people would be clamouring for our kippers. It is not everybody who will eat a salted herring like the Poles, but everybody will eat good kippers. They will keep for four or five days in ordinary temperature, and if kept in cold store for longer and shipped across the Atlantic, the whole American continent would leap for them. The kipperers that I know in Argyle are men who put their consciences into their jobs. They only kipper the best type of herring.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that he should take this matter up and get the proposal that is in my Bill made law as soon as possible. Let him and the Herring Board have the kudos and the glory of putting an end to this miscreant's practice. Nobody defends it except the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law), and of course he has to, because Hull is the place where this wicked practice began. Let the Secretary of State put this matter right and he will have a colossal sale for herring—so great that the shopkeepers will be able to sell them much cheaper. There is the opening of the market for smoked herring lying at his feet, and it is the great remedy for much of the difficulty of the herring industry. I would not object to the surplus herring being given for distribution at the Employment Exchanges at nominal prices and at the public expense, though I was told in Campbeltown that they had sent boxes up to the unemployed in Glasgow and that the people did not even call for them. It was so long since they had tasted herring because the prices of the

fishmongers were prohibitive. The Campbeltown fishermen are very generous, and any unemployed man who likes to go to the boats as they come in will get a string of herring as a gift.
The Minister of Health has been very slack in this matter. I put it before him long ago, and just because the people apparently did not die when they eat a dyed kipper, he would not interfere. Popular prejudice, too, has to be overcome. I am not so sure that the right hon. Member for West Stirling is right when he holds that poor people would not resent herring being given to them. I know that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) once mentioned oatmeal, which is one of the best of foods. In fact, you could bring a whole population up on herring and oatmeal, as they used to do in the Highlands, and a splendid population it was before they took to tinned foods and white bread. The phrase "brought up on a herring" was often used of a man who had raised himself from poor circumstances, and it was thought to be a taunt instead of a compliment, as it really was. The harvest of the sea is infinite, and if it was properly reaped there are ample food supplies for all the people in this country. It should be the Minister's duty to see that they can access to it in spite of any vested interest in the distributive trades.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sorry that I was unable to be present to hear the opening speech of the Secretary of State, but there are one or two points to which I wish to draw attention. I want to add my word to those which have already expressed the disappointment which is felt among the fisherfolk with this report. When the Board was first proposed a rosy picture was painted of its prospective usefulness, with references to the necessity for creating new markets and extending others, advertising, and the rest of it, all expressed in such a fashion that the fisher-folk thought that at last there was hope of their industry gaining real advantage. They invested capital in boats and took such action as they thought would enable them to take advantage of the new facilities being offered. I have it direct from my constituency that they are thoroughly disappointed with what the Board have been able to do, and they ask that unless the Board can do something better


than hitherto the Secretary of State will take other action to achieve the purpose we have in view.
I want to support my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) in his plea that the Government should organise a selling agency. It is quite possible as a course of action, and might bring valuable results. I would remind the Under-Secretary that the Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society were very successful not long ago in negotiating with Russia a trade agreement which enabled a very considerable quantity of herring to be sold to that country. If the Government would take a hand in this matter they might find that they would achieve far greater success than would appear from the action of the Herring Board. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) suggested a subsidy on coal, and I think the suggestion ought to be considered by the Secretary of State, but some of the boats are run on oil. The Government make a very large profit out of the duty on oil. I understand there is already some small rebate given on the oil used by the boats engaged in the herring fishery, and I should be glad if the Under-Secretary would state precisely what is the position in that matter. The cost of fuel is so large an item, particularly where a considerable voyage has to be undertaken, that if the Scottish Office could secure greater concessions in respect of coal and oil it would be of the very greatest value in enabling the herring fishing industry in Scotland to make progress. I do not propose to add anything to what I have said, because I do not want to take up more time.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I gather that there is very great pressure of time, and I shall compress my remarks into the shortest possible space. I feel that I ought to apologise, as the representative of an English constituency, for rising at all in a Scottish Debate, but Lowestoft is the largest herring port in Great Britain, and the Lowestoft boats land double the quantity of herring landed at any other port in Great Britain, and that is my reason for intervening. Various remarks have been made about the discrepancy in the takings of the English and Scottish boats. That is a serious question and I should like to have had the time to go into it,

but I would point out that in the case of the Scottish boats the fact that individual fishermen in the crew often own a certain number of the nets may possibly have some small effect on the position. Where individual members of a crew own some of the nets there may not be the same readiness to risk the nets in rough weather as there is where one owner or skipper owns all the nets. But there is a more important factor. In April, 1936, there were fishing from Lowestoft and Yarmouth 335 drifters the ownership of which was divided among 142 companies, but out of that number of drifters 117 owners or part owners had actually started going to sea as boys, and 51 skipper were actual owners or part owners of the boats they went out in. The strength of the organisation there lies in this: That behind these companies, whether they own two or three boats or more, there is a shore organisation. There is a general merchant who, possibly, finances a group of boats, perhaps two or three firms with a total of 40 or 50 boats. When it is known that the boats are coming back heavily laden with fish the shore organisation gets ready, and the moment the boat is at the dock the fish are unloaded and the boat gets out to sea again the same afternoon before the flag goes down. I think Scots boats fishing from Lowestoft or Yarmouth have not the advantage of such an organisation. They do not unload so quickly and the flag is down before they are ready to sail and they are prevented from going to sea that night.
I would say a word about restrictions, because there have been very few restrictions on actual catches this year. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) talked about gluts, but let us distinguish between two kinds of glut. There is the glut such as we had in October, 1934, when the finest quality fish were being thrown back into the sea at Lowestoft and Yarmouth. In that case, I think, some organisation ought to have been and could have been introduced to deal with it. There was a different kind of glut a month or two ago. There we had the boats coming in to the Orkneys on a Friday night, in hot weather, with a glut of fish, and it was emptied back. I do not see how that fish could have been dealt with at the moment. It was a 200 miles run to the mainland. The boat would not reach the mainland until some time on Sunday, the weather was


hot, and the fish could not be disposed of fresh. As to salting them, there simply was not the labour to deal with them. We must distinguish between a glut at a place like Lerwick and a glut where there are railway facilities such as there are at Yarmouth and Lowestoft. I suggest that the proper way to get fresh herring to the poorer classes is by a system which will deliver them at the door in ice. It was tried once in Cambridge and led to largely increased sales.
The report of the Board is, to my mind pitched in far too pessimistic and gloomy a tone. Reading that report no hon. Member would get the impression that 1936 was the best fishing year since 1929. The report conveys the impression that those engaged in the industry just covered their expenses. In 1934 the takings of the English boats averaged £1,866, in 1935 £2,150, and in 1936 £2,824, an increase of £1,000 per boat in two years. I regret that the report presents things in much too pessimistic a tone.
I have the time only to deal with one or two other points. I have heard complaints that the Herring Board fix the prices of the fish. It is right that they should do so. One of the objects of creating the Board was to safeguard the fishermen, and if that is to be done there must be minimum prices for the herring. As regards advertising, it is too early to say whether what has been done has been justified. I myself believe there is still a great possibility of development in the home market. Last year there were strikes at the two highest peaks of fishing, and fish were taken off the market at the main time when they were required. We must wait another year, at any rate, before we despair of increasing the home market.
The right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) said the market above all others that is most valuable is the Russian market. That is an echo of the past. Before the War Russia used to take more than 1,000,000 barrels. Russia as it exists to-day—in area—used to take 800,000 barrels. Since the War Russia has never bought more than 105,000 barrels in one year. Last year Russia bought 20,000 barrels, Germany 417,000 barrels—as well as vast quantities of fresh herring—and Poland bought 300,000 barrels. Poland and Germany between

them bought more than 700,000 barrels and Russia 20,000 barrels. With great markets like Germany, Poland and the Baltic States taking 700,000 or 800,000 barrels we cannot sacrifice everything for the Russian market. We should develop it and try to get it, but we must not try to get it by subsidising or lowering prices, because if we do that Germany and Poland will obviously insist upon having their herring at the same price. If there is any subsidising to be done, the proper person to subsidise is the home consumer. We should subsidise our own people first. We buy from Russia £1,000,000 of fish every year, tinned fish, partly from Japanese concessions worked by Russian labour. Last year, Russia bought from us about £30,000 of fish. Surely we can use the tariff weapon. Surely we can approach Russia and say that unless she buys more of our fish, we must put up rates against this flood of imports. It is a legitimate bargaining counter, and I hope that the Government will use it.
The herring fleet to-day is not working at full capacity, but, looking at the figures of the last two or three years, I still believe there will be an increase in sales, and that in a very short time our people will be working at full capacity. Then will come the time when we want to replace defective vessels. A drifter to-day costs £7,500 new. The depreciation is too heavy for the small owner to bear, and I suggest that, when the time comes for replacement, the Board should have extended power and increased finance to give a grant of one-third, that is, £2,500, and let the owner of the boat which is to be scrapped replace the remaining two-thirds. That is an arrangement which may have to be considered in a year or two. I have spoken for 12 minutes. I promised that I would not take more than 12 minutes, although there is much more that I could say and that would occupy 15 or 20 minutes more. In view of the arrangement, I will sit down.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Secretary of State for Scotland stated that the number of herring thrown back into the sea amounted to only 1 per cent. He knows that this matter has been pursued for years in this House, in season and out of season. On his own statement, the


figure of the catch for 1936 was 285,000 tons; that means, again on his own statement that there were 2,850 tons thrown back into the sea. That means a tremendous loss of fish meals to the people. Reckoning at two herring to the pound, the number of herring destroyed in 1936 was 12,768,000. I want the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say a word on this matter when he replies.

6.18 p.m.

Sir Edmund Findlay: I am surprised that this Board can continue for another year with the task it was given, after the report it has made. It says that it was entrusted with the duty of restoring the industry, which was passing through a great crisis. It has done nothing whatsoever. This report states that it will do nothing to put the industry in a better position. In the Debate which we have had this afternoon I suggest we should have had the advantage of the presence of either the First Lord of the Admiralty or of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, because hon. Members know that, during the late War, 2,000 drifters were necessary for the Fleet. After the War, those drifters were eventually chartered. What will happen in the future? Do the Admiralty need drifters or do they not? Some Member of the Government ought to be in his place to-night to listen to the Debate, and to let us know whether they wish fishermen or whether they do not. It is a scandal that these men should have been led, to use a vulgarism, up the garden path for 10 years. They saved their country; they swept the seas of mines and they did all the Cinderella jobs which the Navy needed; and now nobody cares what happens to them. That is a point on which I would not like to divide the Committee, but it would be reasonable to ask for the adjournment of the Debate in order that a Member of the Government connected with Defence might be present to listen to it.
Coming to the report, I will refer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) a few days ago as to whether the fishermen had lost confidence in the Board. The Minister replied that that was a matter of opinion, but he could give no answer. Every line in this report shows that the Board have lost confidence in the Scottish fishermen. A very serious alteration should be made. Hon. Members

have only to read paragraph 25 which says:
Consequently an increase of output per unit of production is the one and only method from which material improvement can be expected.
What was the action of the Board last year? To reduce the number of nets per boat. Does not that affect the catching power per boat? I ask the Government to come out into the open and admit that the steam drifter cannot possibly be an economic success unless it is allowed to fish with the maximum number of nets it can run. It is childish to suggest that you should decrease that number. The Government will not give public assistance or unemployment insurance, and yet they restrict the fishing power of the boats. Let the Government come out into the open and say that our markets are whatever they may be, that we can sell 10,000,000 cran of herring at such a price and can provide so many men with a decent living at that price, but do not let them put, as they have done before, restrictive boards in each port saying: "Cut your nets short so as to increase the price of herring." Let us catch as much herring as we can, and catch them with the fewest number of men so that each man in the industry can get a decent livelihood.
The Government have had to admit, in regard to public assistance, when the girls who were gutting herring were not allowed unemployment insurance unless they got so many days' alternative employment, that employment does not exist. The Government have not admitted that herring fishing is a full-time employment, although no secondary employment exists. I strongly advise this Committee not to accept the report which, from first to last, suggests that the methods of our Scottish men must be changed. I can give a further quotation from paragraph 107:
The advantage taken of this scheme"—
the reconditioning scheme—
was very small, probably because the English owners found themselves able to finance their repairs from their own resources.
On the other hand:
The Scottish were, at the time, trying to persuade Ministers that financial assistance for the purpose should be provided by grants instead of by loans.


This is the key note which shows me proof positive that the Herring Board are not interested in Scottish fishermen:
By the time a decision on this claim had been given, the season was too far advanced to enable repairs to be executed before the commencement of the fishing.
Has the Minister ever suggested or given us any idea why the Herring Board were able to say that? I do not think he can do it, and I believe the Committee would be justified in dividing against the amount required to forward the interests of the Herring Board. I do not believe it is in the interests of the fishermen. I will not discuss the suggestion for pensions, because I may be considered biased, but they spent £55,000 on advertising. They say that their advertising will not be any good unless they increase that amount this year. I have seen no advertisement this year, and we are now at the end of July. I think the Minister might well explain this matter.
Before the Vote is finally passed, let me remind hon. Members that one of the most difficult things with which the fishing industry in the North East of Scotland has to compete is the enormous rates they have to pay to keep their harbours going. Successive Governments have lent them money—I say, and I mean it, at exorbitant rates—to keep the harbours going, and the authorities are squeezing rates of 3s. 6d. or 3s. in the £ to repay those debts. If one of the Defence Ministers would tell me that the fishing industry is not of the least interest to the defence of this country, I would not mind going North and telling those people that they can never hope to get a further grant for their harbours. I hope we shall have an answer from the Minister putting some of these things right.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Richard Law: I should not have ventured to intervene in this Debate but for the somewhat strong criticism which was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) of some of my worthy constituents. I hope very much that the Secretary of State will not pay too much attention to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend. He gave the Committee the idea that there was a widespread practice of adulterating a certain article of food—

that the people in Hull and other ports were accustomed to dye herring instead of smoking them, in order to give the public the impression that they were ordinary smoked kippers. That, of course, is not the case at all. The dipping of herring is not an alternative to smoking. These herring are smoked as well as dipped. The reason why they are dipped is that, if they were smoked sufficiently long to give them the colour which the public demands, the richness and taste would be entirely dried out, and they would in fact be uneatable. My hon. and learned Friend is mistaken when he says that this dipping destroys the taste. If these herring were not dipped, but only smoked, they would in fact be entirely tasteless.

Mr. Boothby: Why does my hon. Friend think that the public demand a particular colour? There is no reason to suppose that that is the case.

Mr. Loftus: Is not the smoking period considerably shorter in the case of the dipped herring?

Mr. Law: My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) asks me why I think the public demand herring of a certain colour. I do not profess to have an expert knowledge of what is in the public mind, but they certainly demand white bread, and this is pretty much on the same lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) suggests that, if the herring are dipped, they need not be smoked as long as they otherwise would be. That is just the point that I was trying to put to the Committee. If these herring were smoked sufficiently long to give them that colour, they would become perfectly tasteless and all the nourishment would go out of them. If my hon. Friend doubts that, I would refer him to the first report of the Sea Fish Commission, in which this subject was dealt with. The only alternative would be to prohibit not the colouring of these herring, but the kippering of this particular kind of herring, and that would create such a shortage that the price would go rocketing up so high that the demand would be killed, and probably it would never be possible to revive it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be very careful not to listen to the optimistic blandishments of the hon. Member for Camlachlie (Mr. Stephen), and that he


will not pay too much attention to the violent attack made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire.
There is one other point that I should like to put before the Committee. This afternoon there has been a great deal of criticism of the Herring Board, but, when one looks at the actual results which have been achieved since the Herring Board was set up, it does seem as though there has been a very distinct improvement. Looking at the figures for 1934 as compared with those for 1936, one sees a tremendous improvement. I only wish that there had been a similar improvement in the white fish industry. In the herring industry, which has such a Board, conditions have improved, though they may not have improved very far. The white fish industry has not had the advantage of the supervision of the Herring Board, and the position of the white fish industry to-day is very much worse than it was in 1936. That shows that there may be some advantages in control as compared with anarchy.

6.36 p.m.

Sir Douglas Thomson: A great deal of sympathy with the fishing industry has been expressed from all quarters of the House, and I would like to emphasise what has been said by many hon. Members with regard to the position, not only of the herring industry, but of the white fish industry. The white fish industry is absolutely destitute. These two branches of the industry hang together. I know that my right hon. Friend is in negotiation at the present time with regard to the steps to be taken in the case of the white fish industry, the position of which will be very serious if those steps are not taken rapidly. As the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) has said, in Aberdeen they lost £180,000 in 1936, and they cannot continue to bear a loss of that kind for more than a very short further period. Unless some statement is made—it cannot be made now until October—the industry will practically cease. The whole fishing industry is under a cloud—a financial cloud and also a cloud in the minds of the people. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) made rather a lame defence of the process of dyeing. 1 hope that some of his friends will come to Scotland and find out

how it should be done. The whole of the white fishing fleet is in a very bad position. Large quantities of fish arrive from Bear Island. Whether they merit the description—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Gordon Macdonald): I am afraid that on this Vote the white fish industry cannot be discussed.

Sir D. Thomson: What is needed very urgently is a statement of policy from the Government, not only in regard to herring, but in regard to white fish, and my only point is that the two must go together. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) suggested that it would be a great advantage to recondition and renew a lot of the herring boats, but I cannot see that there is really much in that at the present time, because, unless money can be made out of the boats, there is no inducement to anyone to recondition or renew them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir E. Findlay) has pointed out, the position is a very serious one for the men in the industry. What inducement have they to go to sea at the present time, when masters, mates and senior people can only earn £2 10s. a week, out of which they have to buy their food? There is no possible inducement to either owners or men.
The fishermen are in a far worse position than the oat growers. I am glad that the oat growers are receiving assistance, and I only wish that some of my hon. Friends here would turn their attention to the fishing industry as successfully as they have done in the case of oats. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen that there should be a separate Minister of Fisheries is one which I would ask the Committee to consider very seriously. The Minister of Agriculture has so much to do with agriculture that fishing comes a long way behind, while my right hon. Friend at the Scottish Office has also a multitude of claims upon his attention. If the hon. Member's suggestion were carried out, the fishermen and the fishing industry would feel that their interests were receiving attention. I am certain that the Secretary of State is doing everything that he can, but this industry, which in a time of prosperity is facing bankruptcy, surely merits special treatment.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I think the whole Committee, and particularly those Members who represent fishing constituencies, are indebted to the Opposition for giving them the opportunity of discussing this Vote. I would like to express certain views which have been borne in upon me by my own experiences among the fishermen in East Fife, and, while we are all anxious to get on to the next subject, I trust that the Committee will give me their indulgence in intervening at this late hour. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), in a very interesting and somewhat challenging speech, urged the creation of a selling agency and the stiffening of the personnel of the Herring Board. He will agree that neither of these proposals is altogether original. He and I together—I remember my own contribution to that effort—were urging these very measures during the discussions on the formation of the Herring Board some years ago, and it was a considerable disappointment to me then that there was not incorporated in the charter of the Board the proposal of the Duncan Committee for an Export Selling Department. I would urge the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider that proposal. It is largely owing to the lack of that centralised selling organisation that we have so many troubles with overseas markets. With regard to the Board itself, one of the first speeches that I made in the House was a plea that the industry could only recover if it had at its centre men of first-class business ability. If they are impartial, so much the better. I am satisfied that such men are available and ready to serve as additional independent members of the Board, men of wide experience who would be an incalculable assistance to the industry.
I do not suppose that many reports from an important Department of State have been received with such general indifference as this particular document has been, and I am bound to say that I agree very largely with the criticisms that have been made against it. It is one of the most dismal documents I have ever read. It is not only dismal; it is hopeless and, indeed misleading. I do not accept the conclusion which it draws about the future or even about the present; I reject utterly the underlying conception that there is no effective remedy

for the troubles which afflict the industry at the present time: and I regard with great scepticism the comparison made of the returns of English and Scottish vessels. I could not help feeling, when I read the report, that whoever wrote it must have been badly in need of a holiday. Perhaps he was suffering from a fit of the blues. Whatever it is, I would urge him to go North, where the invigorating air will do him good. But I would advise him to travel incognito at the beginning, because I have an idea that his reception, not only at Peterhead but elsewhere too, might possibly be somewhat boisterous.
He would discover a lot of interesting things. He would find certainly that the bulk of the herring boats are old, and many of them for practical purposes done. He would find, too, the extraordinary fact that something like half the herring fishermen in Scotland operate their vessels for less than six months of the year—a relic of pre-War prosperity which to me has always seemed quite incomprehensible, and which I believe accounts in very large measure for the depression in the industry there to-day. On the other hand, he would find more cheerful aspects. For instance, he would discover that, despite all the trouble, the love of independence is not yet dead among these fishermen. Individual enterprise is by no means at an end, and faith in the future is not at all dissipated. He would find that individual skippers and crews are still prosecuting a profitable trade; they certainly are on my part of the coast; others are busily engaged in building new vessels, and others again are venturing into new fields of catching and so on. In particular, I think the visitor would see proof positive that, as compared with the English boats, the Scottish drifters are not, as a class, the inefficient, ill-managed, stupidly run vessels that this report seems to suggest. The tables showing the respective catches and landings of the two types of boat are quite misleading. You cannot compare the net returns of the two types by trotting out only these statistics. For example, my information is that the English boats use more nets per boat. That, immediately increases their catch. There is no mention of that in the report. What, too, about Sunday landings? There is mention of week-end fishing, but I am not sure whether actual Sunday landings are taken into account. And there are other


factors such as those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). When they are all taken into account, you still have not got the real test. The only effective test is that of net profit, and on that score the Scottish boats are not doing so very much worse than the English boats on the whole. I remember very well the Duncan Committee report on enormous debts and great financial difficulties among the English companies' boats. At one port the debt was £1,800 per vessel, and I know that was not a Scottish port. If the purpose of the comparison made in the present report has been to discredit the individualist character of the Scottish organisation, I think it has failed.
I do not close my mind to the necessity for closer co-operation among herring fishermen—indeed I recognise its need in many directions—but I am not persuaded that any case has been made up for abandoning the independent personal character of the trade in our country. Different considerations arise when you pass from the production side to the disposal of the product, and I agree with a great deal that has been said on that matter to-day. Incidentally, I think some hon. Members have been a little hard on the Board with regard to the Russian contract. I do not think it is fair to lay the whole blame, or even the major part of it, at their door, for we know that the Board encountered great difficulties in obtaining agreement among the trade. Remember it has no power to sell over their heads: It has to get their consent for every contract, and they were exceedingly obstinate last year. The fact is that it was they, not the Board, who turned down the offer of purchase of 100,000 barrels from Russia. The Board failed to bring of the deal because of lack of unity and combined sense on the part of the trade itself, on the crucial matter of price.
I am afraid that we are forgetting in this new age the first criterion of a prosperous herring industry, which is that the product must necessarily be sold cheap. It is quite hopeless to imagine that herring can be disposed of as a luxury product at a luxury price. That is nonsense. They can sell only as a very cheap article. The prices in my opinion are too high yet. They have got to be cut, and there is no where that I can see to cut them except in the cost

of production. The most important element in the machine of production, or catching, is the vessel. It is stated in the Report that the vessels are old fashioned and out of date, and therefore over costly to run. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Herring Industry Board is so reluctant to recognise the obvious advantages of the motor type of vessel. There are some of these vessels in my constituency, and they are to be found in other ports. The owners of these new boats have figures to show which prove conclusively that the Diesel engine boat, at about half or one-third of the cost of a steam drifter, is able to provide much more money for the individual members of the crew. Why does not the Board adopt that system? Why cannot they make a big, bold advance, as an experiment if you like, in the building of Diesel engine boats? If that were done, you might cut down the cost of production and be able to sell herring at as low as 20s., or 15s., a cran, and we should win these foreign contracts, which are so desirable. Every other section of the shipping industry is doing it. Lloyds register yesterday announced the building last year of 1,500,000 tons of oil engine vessels. I beg my right hon. Friend to press that constructive suggestion upon the Board. It is essential to sell more herring, and it can only be done at a reduced price.

6.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): My right hon. Friend has given an exhaustive analysis of the present position, and I think I should best meet the wishes of the Committee if I restricted myself closely to a few comments on the points that have been raised. I think the Committee would also wish me, in view of the important business that still lies before us, to be exceedingly short. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I do not enter into detailed replies to individual Members who have spaken.

Mr. Boothby: I hope we are not going to carry this 10-minute rule too far. It is becoming absolutely farcical. No one is able to make a case from any part of the Committee, and now the Minister is making a reply. The whole thing should be brought to an end, but I think he should make a decent reply to the Debate.

Mr. Johnston: Two Votes were put down to give all sorts of Members from Scotland an opportunity of stating their case. Hon. Members who desire to speak about housing yielded to the desire of the few Members who represent the herring fishery that herring should get a show on condition that the herring representatives would play the game.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he would not press it so far as to curtail, or to permit the Minister to curtail, the full reply to which we are entitled.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: The Minister certainly has to reply to a variety of points which have been put from all sides of the Committee. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that he ought to be given some latitude. We want a full reply. Further, I believe the Leader of the Opposition on this question should also receive a certain amount of latitude. It is folly to tie down those interested in this question to 10 or 15 minutes, because we want the case of Scotland stated as fully as that of any other part of the country.

Mr. Wedderburn: I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, and am anxious to do what will meet the convenience of most Members. There are a great many who wanted to have a Debate on housing, and we do not want to curtail that. Perhaps I shall be able to effect a compromise if I condense my answer into the shortest possible compass. Most hon. Members who have spoken have pointed out that the report does not produce a very great number of final conclusions. Practically all the speeches that have been made have been directed towards three lines of action, first, steps that can be taken to develop the home market, next, steps that may be taken to develop foreign markets, and, thirdly, what measures are necessary for assisting the re-organisation of the machinery of the herring industry itself. We are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) for the instructive character of his speech. He made one specific proposal about the home market, that the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society should, as he said it was prepared to do, purchase surpluses of herring catches so that, instead

of the fish being dumped into the sea, they could distribute them at a cheap price, without any profit, to purchasers in the industrial districts. We are very grateful for any suggestion of this kind and the Board will most certainly be glad to avail themselves, if it should prove practicable, of the services of this or any other concern that can dispose of these surplus catches. I was asked by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) about figures. The figure that he gave, 285,000 tons, is the total of the United Kingdom catch, and that means about 5,800,000 cwts. The figure that my right hon. Friend gave was based on the total catch for Scotland, 2,700,000 cwts., of which 23,000 cwts. during 1936 had been returned to the sea. That is rather less than 1 per cent. of the total Scottish catch. Apart from that, elsewhere in Great Britain there was practically no herring thrown back into the sea. If you take the Great Britain catch as a whole the proportion is less than 0.5 per cent.
Let me say a word about the general question of home consumption. The right hon. Gentleman opposite urged that we ought to try to find some means of bringing a greater quantity of herring to people in the industrial districts who need more food. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the nutritional value of herring.

Sir E. Findlay: Has the hon. Gentleman made any suggestions to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence with regard to the food value of herring?

Mr. Wedderburn: No, Sir, I do not think that the food value of herring is particularly a matter for the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I was saying that I agree about the nutritional value of herring and the desirability on that and other grounds of increasing our home consumption, and I am naturally very reluctant to say anything which might be interpreted as not wishing to encourage their consumption. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no useful purpose to be served by glossing over any difficulty or any fact which we do not like. On the contrary, the more readily we face these facts the more likely we are to discover how to overcome them. It is an undoubted fact that the herring among large sections of people in the industrial districts is not


a popular article of diet. I remember rather more than a year ago that when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sir Godfrey Collins I had to take his place at a large educational conference and I took the opportunity of humbly suggesting that more should be done to encourage the cooking and eating of herring. I tried to give an eloquent account of the splendid quality of the men of our fishing fleet who were going through a very bad time. It was not a political meeting and there was no question of political controversy, but my remarks were received, I am sorry to say, with audible signs of dissent, and every speaker who followed severely criticised my suggestion that people should eat more herring.
I do not know why herring are not more popular. I do not know enough about cooking, but I believe that cooking is one difficulty. They take a long time to cook, and also people do not think that they are good for children to eat because they have so many bones. If that is so, the best way of proceeding is to try to overcome that prejudice, and advertisement is one of the best ways of doing it. The right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) acknowledged the plea which is contained in the report, that although there was a slight decrease of home consumption last year compared with the year before, you cannot expect the effect of an advertising campaign to show itself and produce results in so short a period of time. The Board are to continue the advertising campaign for the current 12 months. They also point out with justice in their report that when supplies were short on account of the strikes which took place last year there were a great many complaints from fishmongers that they could not get the supplies they needed to satisfy their customers, and the Board seem inclined to think that the decline in consumption was largely accounted for by the fact that these two strikes occurred when herring were being caught in large quantities and fetching a good price. I hope that we shall all do our best to assist in removing any prejudice there is against the consumption of this fish, and in making to the Board any suggestion we can of attractive methods of advertisement.
With regard to the foreign market, the right hon. Gentleman was also good enough to make constructive suggestions.

He himself has been in touch with Russian trade representatives here, and I have no doubt that the Board will be very grateful for any assistance he can give them as intermediary or in any other way in enabling larger and more rapid contracts to be fixed. I am not sure he was right in thinking that the main thing was to do away with individualism and have a single selling organisation, because at the time when we sold most herring to Russia in 1911—something like 1,000,000 barrels; 10 times as much as in the best year since the War—there was no kind of collective organisation in Russia or Great Britain. We did not even have the Herring Board.
On the subject of the reorganisation of the industry, the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) both asked that some assistance should be given for coal, and the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked also about oil. In the case of oil the position is exactly the same as with ocean-going ships. A vessel using oil is entitled to claim a rebate amounting to the whole of the tax. A good deal has been said on the question of reorganisation, whether you should proceed on the principle of leaving the industry in Scotland in the hands of large numbers of small owners or small groups of owners, or whether you should try to work out some amalgamation, either in the selling or the fishing side of the business, or both, and whether we in Scotland should approximate to the larger companies which prevail in England. My right hon. Friend began by saying that we had completely open minds on that particular point and that he would welcome any arguments which were put forward by hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said, quite rightly, that we ought not to conclude from the comparative figures given in the report about the earnings of the Scottish and English boats that Scottish fishermen are all that much worse off. There are a great many countervailing factors. Scotsmen do not fish for such long periods or on Sundays and their expenses and overheads are smaller. Still, if we look at the net earnings alone we shall find on page 9 of the report that the average results for the East


Anglian fishing in 1936 were for Scottish boats £447 and for English boats £1,272. The share of the crews in the Scottish boats was only £149 as against £477. I do not suggest that that represents a true picture, but I think that it is true on the whole to say that, while most of the English fishermen contrive to earn a reasonable wage, probably nearly half of the Scottish fishermen are not able to earn what anybody would regard as a living wage. There are undoubtedly great advantages in larger amalgamations which have greater financial resources behind them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), in a very interesting and useful speech, pointed out that the small amount of earnings in the Scottish boats was largely on account of the fact that fishermen who own their own tackle do not like to risk it when the weather is bad, whereas if the tackle

is owned by somebody else and the loss does not fall on the fishermen, they will stay out and continue to fish in bad weather and save an enormous amount of time in going backwards and forwards so that their net earnings will be much greater. On the one hand, we shall all recognise that there are certain advantages in having larger organisations, while, on the other hand, I hope we shall all sympathise with the desire for independence which, I think, exists very strongly among the Scottish fishermen. If any plan is in future worked out for reorganising the industry on these lines, we shall all hope that it will be one which will preserve as much as possible the personal independence of the Scottish fishermen.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £34,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 164.

Division No. 305.]
AYES.
[7.14 p.m.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Banfield, J. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Barnes, A. J.
Hopkin, D.
Sanders, W. S.


Barr, J.
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Thorne, W.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Walker, J.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mander, G. le M.
Watkins, F. C.


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Owen, Major G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Paling, W.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.





NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Atholl, Duchess of
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Beechman, N. A.




Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsbotham, H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hambro, A. V.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Brass, Sir W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Harbord, A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Higgs, W. F.
Remer, J. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cary, R. A.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Channon, H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hunter, T.
Savery, Sir Servington


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Scott, Lord William


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Selley, H. R.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Keeling, E. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Crooke, J. S.
Lees-Jones, J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Levy, T.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lewis, O.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cross, R. H.
Lipson, D. L.
Spans, W. P.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


De Chair, S. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Denman, Hon. R. D
Lyons, A. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Dodd, J. S.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Doland, G. F.
MCorquodale, M. S.
Train, Sir J.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wakefield, W. W.


Dunglass, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Eastwood, J. F.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Eckersley, P. T.
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Markham, S. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Ellis, Sir G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Elmley, Viscount
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Watt, G. S. H.


Fildes, Sir H.
Moreing, A. C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Furness, S. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Munro, P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Nall, Sir J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Goldie, N. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Gower, Sir R. V.
Peake, O.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Petherick, M.



Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major H. A.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain Dugdale.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. James Stuart (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLASS V.

Orders of the Day — DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,348,501, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland; including Grants, a Grant in Aid and other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grant in Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, Grants in Aid in respect of Benefits, etc., under the National Health Insurance Act; certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and other Services.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I understand that this Vote has been put down at the request of the Opposition for the purpose of hearing a report on housing and how far we are able to make a statement of progress since the last Debate. I very gladly take this opportunity of making a further statement. We have already had two Debates on housing this year, and this will be the third. It shows the intense interest of Scotland on the subject, and I heartily welcome that interest. Since our last Debate a month ago, it has become more and more obvious that the machine is overloaded. The Scottish building industry, of course, shows a very great output, but it is showing signs of a machine which is working under great strain. The output can be judged by the figures showing the value of the plans approved in the 10 largest burghs in Scotland, that is to


say, covering half of the population of the country. The total value of the plans approved in the first five months of 1936 was £3,446,700, and for the first five months of 1937 it was £4,791,000. If one examines that increase in detail, the value of plans approved for dwelling houses has gone up from £1,844,000 to £2,237,000 which is about 21 per cent. Of course, a great deal of that rise is accounted for by an increase in building costs.
On the other hand, the value of plans for factories and workshops has gone up from £158,000 to £574,000, or by 263 per cent. We do want more factories and new factories in Scotland. Nobody would seriously suggest that we should stop building factories. It is all the more a healthy sign since these factories do not include Government munition works, but factories and workshops for private enterprise of one kind or another in Scotland. Our country, whose industrial equipment is in some respects out of date, must welcome the appearance of new and up to date factories for the work of the country to be carried on. But labour engaged in factories and workshops cannot be used on housing, and I think that that is one of the reasons why we are not getting as many houses as we want.
The problem is quite simple. There is, firstly, a shortage of men, and, secondly, to a smaller extent, there is a shortage of certain materials. Suggestions have been made that we should get rid of this along two lines. One line is the suggestion of control and the other is the suggestion of increasing supplies. From my point of view I frankly say that I prefer the method of increasing supplies. I do not think the methods of control will in fact secure what we have in mind, all the more so since, whenever we examine the suggestions for control, they nearly all come down to controlling the other fellow. Industrialists may be extremely anxious that the trade unions should be controlled, and the trade unions that the big business firms should be controlled. Men in Parliament may be extremely anxious that local authorities should be controlled, and local authorities that Parliament or the Minister should be controlled. We all desire that somebody else should be controlled, and I am sure that the danger of control would be the disappearance of the things we want, namely, the men and the

materials which we wish to obtain for house building in Scotland.
What are we doing to meet the situation? We have not been inactive since the subject was last debated. As I was able to inform the House on Tuesday, in answer to a question, we have recently been able to complete a most valuable agreement with the building industry in Scotland. It should have a far-reaching effect in housing progress because it provides machinery for the expansion of personnel, and also affords a ready means of discussing difficulties of organisation which may from time to time hamper progress. As the Committee will remember, it provides for a joint consultative committee being set up on which will serve representatives of the industry, both operatives and employers, and representatives of the Government Departments. We shall sit round the table and be able to raise and thrash out questions which might otherwise slow down the progress of housing. There will be no slowing down on account of our having correspondence with each other on the matter. I am convinced, after many years of experience, that if we once have separate committees writing letters to each other all progress is held up for several weeks and indeed for several months.
The agreement deals with one very important point to which representatives of labour attach the very greatest importance, and that is the augmentation of the labour supply. The agreement provides for the relaxation of the present rules of the industry limiting the number of apprentices. The present proportion of apprentices is one for the first three journeymen and one for every four journeymen thereafter. That is to be increased by allowing apprentices to be engaged where necessary for additional labour at the rate of one apprentice for every three journeymen as a flat rate. That provision is coupled with proposals for overtime and for the referring of overtime to committees which can authorise it. Neither employers nor operatives regard overtime as a sound arrangement, but they have agreed that applications for the working of overtime shall receive sympathetic consideration, especially in view of their recognition of the necessity for securing better progress with the building of houses. The agreement starts off by a recognition of the fact that the present problem of housing in Scotland


is one of urgency, and I attach more importance to that than to some of the other clauses in the agreement.
I recognise the difficulty of the operatives in agreeing to increase the labour supply when there is stringency in the supply of bricks. Some local authorities have even decided to postpone further building. The increase in personnel will be gradual. It depends upon a close examination of the position in various districts. We are already taking steps to increase the supply of bricks, and that, together with the knowledge that the labour supply can be augmented, should have a steadying effect on the cost of house building. Much of the present increase in cost is due to the uncertainty in the minds of contractors as to their ability to complete contracts, and their uneasiness about the move in prices during the time that they are engaged on the contracts. The quicker we can get the houses built the finer will firms be able to quote, because with the production of houses spread over a year or two years, it would puzzle the wit of man to forecast the movement of prices of supplies for the next two years. I hope that we shall have results so that the local authorities' fears may also be removed. We want to steady prices as far as possible, and no doubt hon. Members opposite will have something to say on the subject.
I should like to turn for a short time to a matter on which the House showed great interest in our last housing Debate, namely, rural housing. We are endeavouring to stimulate a greater growth of housing activities, following the publication of the report on rural housing. I hold in my hand a circular which was issued yesterday to all county councils, dealing with the recommendations in the report and dealing exhaustively with those recommendations that can be carried out administratively. I have done my utmost to accelerate the production of the circular, more particularly that it might be in the hands of hon. and right hon. Members for this Debate. I caused a copy to be posted to all the Scottish Members so that they would have it in their possession. I hope this will not be taken as a precedent, because I cannot undertake to post to hon. Members all the circulars that come from the

Department. But in view of the special circumstances I thought that hon. Members would be glad to have this circular in their hands.
It follows a meeting between officials of the Department of Health and representatives of the Association of County Councils. The association showed that they were most anxious to make progress and to co-operate with the Department in carrying out these administrative changes, and I should like to thank the representatives of the county councils for the helpful way in which they are approaching this problem, all the more so since some of the county councils felt a little sore about the terms of the report, and began by indicating that they wished to put in evidence to establish the fact that the strictures did not apply to them. I give full credit for the excellent work that some county councils have done. Take one example, East Lothian. East Lothian had certainly done a great deal of work and, naturally, they felt a little sore at the generalities in some of the statements in the report. At the same time none of us can deny that in general the picture given by the report brings out quite properly some of the very black spots in Scottish housing, and we all owe a great deal to any committee which fearlessly states its opinion, even if that opinion may be over-stated in certain respects.
The Circular recommends in paragraph (1) a more adequate inspection of rural houses, and in paragraph (2) special surveys of houses for farm servants and crofters. Paragraph (3) deals with the annual inspection of one-fifth of the houses under a rental of £26 5s. in rural areas. Paragraph (4) deals with the engagement of adequate staffs to carry out these inspections. Paragraph (5) and the Appendix gives the standard of fitness, and on the back of the Circular is printed a model form. We have drawn up a new form of annual report to the Department, which is to be issued shortly. Paragraph (6) states that there will be sample inspections by the Department, in which we hope to act as colleagues, and not as critics of the inspections carried out by the local authorities. I am sure that it will be to the advantage of the local authorities to have assistance from the central Department in bringing about a uniform


standard throughout the country. Paragraph (8) makes provision as to a survey of crofters' houses, in co-operation with the Highland county councils. Paragraph (9) deals with the demolition of unfit houses, and paragraph (10) with the improvement of defective houses and a new use of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. Paragraphs (11) to (15) deal with a review of the procedure under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, and paragraph (16) deals with the planning, design and lay-out of new houses, and expresses our hope that these will be an addition to and not a desecration of the beauty of the Scottish countryside.
I hope very much that after this Circular we shall not be able with any justice to talk of waste of money under these Acts. I hope that the effect of the Circular will not be to delay housing by forms being sent from the council to the Department and back again from the Department to the council and therefore I have offered in the Circular to get into touch forthwith with the Association of County Councils with a view to expediting procedure and making sure that this accelerates and does not slow down the progress of rural housing. I hope that the Committee will agree that, as far as I can without legislation, I have implemented the pledge that I gave as soon as the Report on Rural Housing came out, that I would not regard it as a report to be pigeon-holed but as a report for action, and that action has been taken at the earliest possible moment.
As regards the general position, we are taking emergency measures to deal with certain difficulties. I mentioned a month ago that the Commissioner for the Special Areas proposed to convene a meeting of local authorities in the Special Areas to consider the advisability of some auxiliary programme being carried out by a housing association, which would not lay any burden upon the rates of the local authorities concerned, but would offer an opportunity of trying out alternative methods under conditions more suitable than can be tried out in the ordinary building programmes of local authorities. That meeting was held on 12th July, and I am very glad to say that as a result the Commissioner feels certain of a sufficient degree of support from the local authorities to justify the promotion

of the Association, and the necessary arrangements are now being made.
Furthermore, I am able to announce that we have been successful in securing a chairman for the company. The chairman will be the present Commissioner for the Special Areas, Sir David Allan Hay. I should like to say that the present Commissioner has felt compelled, on account of pressure of business, to relinquish his appointment as Commissioner. When he accepted the post he made it clear that he could not promise to continue to serve after 31st March, 1937, when the Act expired, but with great public spirit, for which I wish to thank him, he agreed to remain in office until the preliminary work under the new Act could be set in train. It is with the greatest regret that the Government have now to accept his resignation. I think the Committee would like me to express to him the warm thanks of the Government for the invaluable work he has done as Commissioner. He undertook a very formidable task, and the manner in which he has discharged it has enhanced his already high reputation as a business man, possessed of great ability which he has always been ready to devote to the service of his country. He is continuing that service in an unpaid capacity as chairman of this special housing company, and I think that his experience as Commissioner will be of great assistance to us and to the Special Areas in the work which will have to be done.
I am also in a position to announce the name of the new Commissioner, Lord Nigel Douglas Hamilton. It is very desirable that we should make use of our younger men, and although Lord Nigel is a young man, he is already well known for his public work both as a Commissioner of the Board of Control and as a member of the Corporation of Edinburgh, and in other spheres. I am sure that the Committee, and especially the Scottish Members, who know him and his work, will wish him well as a young man taking on a very difficult task and deserving the unanimous support of all of us, without any distinction of party. It is his desire as well as that of the Government that Sir David Allan Hay should take over the chairmanship of the new company. In that capacity he will come into contact with the problems that we are discussing to-night, in more ways than one.
For instance, hon. Members for industrial Lanarkshire will know a little about the case of the Hamilton squatters. There, a considerable number of families occupied property which had been condemned and vacated by the tenants. The squatters numbered about 100 families, and they represented to the Department that their conditions were intolerable. The heads of the Department visited this property and were satisfied that the houses were, as one would expect, completely unfit for habitation. They had been compulsorily vacated, and hon. Members will know what that means in Scotland. They were occupied without any discipline or organisation by members of these families. There was serious danger of epidemic and general danger to the public health. The situation was scandalous, and, despite the fact that the squatters had illegally gone into these buildings and no doubt were themselves to blame for the position, we had to do something to deal with the problem as an emergency one.
Through the good offices of the Commissioner I hope that a solution has been found. He has agreed to finance the Second Scottish Housing Company, which will be familiar to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy), in acquiring certain properties in Hamilton, old properties, and reconditioning them in order to make them suitable for occupation for a limited period. They cannot be made completely suitable for housing, but they will, I think, help us to put an end to this intolerable position. There was a meeting with the town council of Hamilton this week, when they agreed to co-operate, and accordingly the way is clear for the company to begin the work of reconditioning.
An essential condition of this arrangement, which will not cost the town council anything, is that the town council should take all possible steps to prevent illegal occupation of condemned houses in the future, and to do this effectively the town council need the support of property owners to secure that evacuated property is not re-occupied. I should like to make a personal appeal to property owners to co-operate to the fullest extent with the town council. I want to make it abundantly clear that this action is taken to deal with the special difficulty in Hamilton and must not be regarded as lending any encouragement to the idea that any

person can unlawfully occupy a condemned house and then expect to get a preference over other tenants for new houses. In some cases when you deal with one evil you bring in other evils worse than the one you are trying to remove, but I am sure hon. Members who are interested in these matters will realise the dangers of this course and will also realise that the scandal of the Hamilton squatters cannot be tolerated if our country is to hold up its head with any dignity at all and that some method had to be taken to deal with it. I hope this difficulty will not be followed by other and greater difficulties.
In the present emergency we are examining possible alternative methods of construction. So far as labour is concerned, I have indicated the extent to which it will be possible to recruit new labour which can be absorbed in the industry, and any further acceleration of housebuilding must come from other methods of construction not yet explored. The main forms are houses of concrete construction and timber construction and the association which has been set up in the Special Areas will give an opportunity for experimenting in these new methods. In regard to wooden houses, we are in touch with representatives of certain special forms of construction.
Let us have a look at the picture of the present housing situation and see whether we can form any estimate of the future course during the next six months. We have now the returns for the completion of houses in the first half of the year, which is the worst half, and for the purposes of the Debate I have asked local authorities how many houses they expect to finish in the second half of 1937. The number actually completed is 5,973. The houses which have yet to be completed are a matter of estimate. No one would like to tie himself to an iron-clad figure of how many houses will be finished by the end of the year. Anyone who has had the experience of trying to get into a house of his own knows the number of small incidents which are likely to arise to delay the final completion and occupation of the house, and, therefore, I give this figure with the utmost reserve. The estimate is 11,267, that is local authority houses, for the second half of 1937. If that is realised the total for the year will be 17,240 houses as against 16,044 for 1936.


That is to say, there will be a slight increase over the figures for the previous year.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Will these houses come under the 1935 Act or under the other Acts?

Mr. Elliot: I cannot say. I am taking the gross output of the building trade. In many cases the local authority does not allocate the use of the houses until they are completed and they are deciding what tenants to put in. As to private enterprise 3,949 houses of five apartments and less were finished in the first half of 1937, and on that basis we estimate that the number of private enterprise houses of five apartments and less completed in 1937 may be about 8,500 as compared with 7,300 in 1936. There again, there is a slight increase over the previous year. We can now make a balance, which comes out at a rough total of some 25,000 houses of this size, that is to say, five apartments and less, the houses which are wanted to deal with the present situation. That, roughly speaking, is similar to the number completed in the last five years. In 1933 the number was 26,000, in 1934, 24,000, in 1935 25,000, in 1936 23,000—a very serious drop. In 1937, the estimate, which I give with the greatest reserve, is 25,000.

Mr. Westwood: Is it not the fact that the houses to be completed in 1937 are houses for which the estimates were accepted by local authorities some time ago and before the big jump in prices? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what estimates have been accepted during the last three months as compared with the previous year?

Mr. Elliot: The tenders for the houses which are now being completed were, of course, accepted a year or 18 months ago. As to the tenders which are now coming in, I cannot give figures for the last three months and I am coming to the next feature of the situation, which is the increasing lag between the number of houses approved and the number completed. I have taken out figures for 30th June, 1937. At that date 25,000 houses were under construction by local authorities and 13,000 contracted for. That is, there were 38,000 local authority houses on the stocks. We have completed them at the

rate of 16,000 or 17,000 a year. That is not a desirable situation. It shows that the Scottish building industry has now on hand local authority work which cannot be accelerated by any increase in the subsidy, which cannot be in any way improved by any further financial terms being given, and we shall have this lag at the end of the next two years unless we can do something to accelerate progress. That is why I attach great importance to the building agreement I announced earlier and to other methods we can take of bringing in auxiliary teams to help us out of this difficult position.
All these are symptoms, not only of the congestion in house building, but of increasing industrial activitiy. Hon. Members will agree that people are being drained away from housing activities to other activities. There are indications, which we all welcome, that industrial activity will increase, and that will increase the demands on building labour. About one-half of the bricklayers in Scotland are on local authority work, a much larger percentage than in England, and it means that that is the area of labour from which recruitment will inevitably flow for other building enterprises. I think it is important, therefore, that the plans which I have announced for labour augmentation and for local consultation should work smoothly and easily. It is suggested, quite rightly, that this joint consultative committee should be a moving committee, that it should not confine itself to sitting in Edinburgh hearing delegates and discussing matters, but should travel to areas where a shortage has taken place, meet the local representatives and do its best to clear up the situation. This will demand personal supervision if we are to get any real acceleration into building programmes in the immediate future.
It is possible—I warn hon. Members—that things may get worse before they get better. We can all see a shortage of labour coming owing to industrial activities. It is an encouraging feature, and I am glad to be able to say, in talking about these problems, that the trouble arises from industrial activity in Scotland instead of arising from the depression. We are moving from a period of depression into a period of activity, and I am glad to have a different set of problems to grapple with from those with


which my predecessors have had to grapple for so many years.

Mr. Gallacher: We want to move out of slums.

Mr. Elliot: We do; and we want to move out of a period of depression into a period of activity.

Mr. Leonard: A period of explosions?

Mr. Elliot: I made it clear that the factory figures I gave did not include Government munition factories, but were factories required by private enterprise in industrial activity which is very badly needed in Scotland. The increasing pressure on the building industry makes it absolutely necessary to plan our programme, and with that object I issued last week a circular to local authorities urging them to review their probable programmes for the next two years and try to plan, with adjoining authorities where necessary, so that the available supply of skilled labour shall be fully and continuously used without undue strain. I undertook that the Departments under my control should also be ready to assist individual authorities in planning their programmes. At the meeting with the Associations of Local Authorities it was agreed that a general order could not be applied over the whole country, but that joint consideration by departments and discussion with individual authorities would establish local orders of priority. I have done my best to review the problem before us and the progress which has been made during the last year. I hope the Committee will agree that we have not been asleep during that time. The whole of my administration and organisation has done its utmost to forward the rehousing of Scotland at as early a date as possible. There are obstacles in the way, but we are determined to carry through our housing policy as quickly as the obstacles will permit.

7.59 P.m.

Mr. T. Henderson: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
The right hon. Gentleman is a little more optimistic than he was when discussing the question of the herring industry, but those who live in industrial areas are not quite so optimistic on this matter as the right hon. Gentleman. I agree

that there are always conflicting interests and that industrials want some kind of special treatment. We object strongly, we think it is wrong for industrialists to combine to obtain a monopoly of essential commodities which will be beneficial to the welfare of the people. During the last two months I have heard in this House and outside a statement to the effect that the bricklayers' union has become a close corporation, and that by regulations and restrictions it has made it impossible for the supply to meet the demand by local authorities and other employers in the house-building line. For that reason, the bricklayers' union is condemned. Speaking as one who, for over 50 years, has been a member of a trade union which is part of the Building Trades Federation, I say that if that were true, then it would be our duty to condemn the bricklayers just as we condemn the industrialists. I appeal from this side of the Committee—and I hope the appeal will have some effect—to the bricklayers' union to ease down as much as it can the rules and restrictions that stand in the way of providing houses for the working classes. If the union's attitude is one that will prevent the working class from obtaining houses, which are the basis of good health, then it is more evil than the combination of industrialists. I hope an appeal from these benches will have some effect.
I have had some experience of building estates in this country and I have noticed how, in my opinion, something more could be done in crises of this nature. After all, the new proposals and the appointment of a joint council will provide only a few apprentices, and it takes some time to learn the trade. My experience in the building industry has taught me that there is another source, and I intend to make some suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman. However, he said in his speech on 24th June that the negotiations for an arrangement with the bricklayers' union and other building trades were delicate and difficult, and I agree with him. If he will be good enough to have a conversation with me privately, I think I shall be able to satisfy him that there is another method, instead of the apprenticeship method, of helping along the building of houses for the working classes in Scotland.
As I represent a Glasgow constituency, a city which is one of the blackest spots


in Scotland from the point of view of the housing of the workers, I feel that I am entitled to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the position there. The Glasgow Corporation was determined to build houses, under a 10 years scheme which would persuade the building trade workers to come into the industry because of the long period of employment that would follow. The Corporation also thought that it would be able to get the Scottish Office and the right hon. Gentleman to be more generous in their treatment of the applications of the local authority for carrying through the scheme by direct labour. It is a peculiar thing that the working-class building scheme in the City of Glasgow is the only one in Scotland that has kept to scheduled time. Building has been continuous, and there has not been the slightest trouble. It is being carried through by direct labour, and so far it has been kept up to date. I am referring to the Bellahouston scheme.
A great many schemes in Glasgow have been at a standstill because it was not possible to find men to do the work. The bricklayers are the people who are standing in the way, and if that difficulty could be overcome, the other difficulties would be met. In the case of plasterers, there are alternative methods of doing the work. I do not like those alternatives, but the working class must have houses. The position in Glasgow is exceptionally bad. A start was made with the 10 years plan. The Glasgow Corporation has the best intentions in the world, and was very anxious to build houses for the working class. It found that from May, 1936, to June, 1937, it was able to complete, not 7,000 houses as planned, but 2,025. From June of this year to the end of May, 1938, it proposes to build 4,935 houses. Sites have been prepared for approximately 18,000 houses.
But the corporation is rather troubled. In his speech on 24th June, the right hon. Gentleman used a very unfortunate word. He spoke about the scramble for the £60. He said that of the £100 increase on each house,£40 went in wages and the increased price of materials, and that there was a scramble for £60. Hon. Members know that the Scottish people, theoretically at any rate, are very thrifty, and when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of a £60 scramble, there are "wigs on the green." People

want to know where it goes. I am reminded of an old Scottish custom. When a Scottish couple gets married, a crowd of children gathers at the door, and calls out, "Hard up," expecting some money to be scattered for which they can scramble. According to the right hon. Gentleman, £60 is being poured out in this case. He does not know where it is going, and people are becoming anxious. There is a great deal of hilarity among the children when they scramble for the money, but there is no hilarity in the housing committees of the local authorities when they hear about the £60. It means that on the 4,953 houses that the Glasgow Corporation is undertaking, it is paying £297,180 to be scrambled for.

Mr. Elliot: I do not think the hon. Member is doing me justice. Surely, I said that the scramble is being caused by the local authorities.

Mr. Henderson: I beg to differ. They object to the increased price.

Mr. Elliot: Exactly.

Mr. Henderson: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to stop this increased price, because the working classes for whom the houses are to be provided are so poor that they cannot possibly afford to pay in rates the money that is to be scrambled for by the contractors. There is no merriment in the housing committees.

Mr. Elliot: I wish the hon. Member would stop using that unfortunate word. There is no merriment going on anywhere about this matter.

Mr. Henderson: I am not responsible for it. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible. He used the word "scramble."

Mr. Elliot: When I use a word to describe a very serious situation—a word without a fraction of merriment in it—it seems to me arbitrary that anybody should take a reference to housing costs as being funny. I do not think it is funny; nor does any hon. Member on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman described it as a scramble. I spoke of the merriment caused by an old Scottish custom, but there is no merriment caused in the housing committees by this particular scramble.

Mr. Elliot: I agree.

Mr. Henderson: What are the facts? On 4,953 houses, £60 a house represents a total of £297,180, and it means that 743 working-class houses will not be built. They will have gone in the scramble. That is a very serious thing. If one takes the 18,000 houses which the City of Glasgow Corporation intends to build, there are being wasted in the scramble no less than 3,748 working-class houses. That cannot be justified.

Mr. Elliot: Hear, hear.

Mr. Henderson: I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he intends to do to stop that. I would like now to refer to the prices. Taking the figures of the Glasgow Corporation's costing department, from February, 1936, up to the present time the price of timber has increased by 40 per cent. or 50 per cent., lead by 33 per cent., bricks by 50 per cent., steel by 60 per cent., cast-iron goods by 80 per cent., and slates by 5 per cent. Another important material which is used in house-building is cement. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in the case of cement there is a monopoly, and that 94 per cent. of the total amount of cement produced in this country is produced under one federation of producers, and that they have increased their export trade every year. They are selling cement abroad at less than 30s. a ton and they are taking from the local authorities and other users of cement in this country no less than 40s. a ton. I would have no argument at all if the export trade did not pay them, but it does pay them substantial profits. Yet they charge 40s. a ton in the home market. Nor is that all for they make an excessive charge for transit.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into these prices. Is there no method of control? I know that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) tried to get something done in the Finance Bill to deal with this matter, but he did not succeed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to do something effective to stop any further increase, if he cannot get a reduction, in the price of building materials. Local authorities who, perhaps, have very poor communities, cannot be expected to go on spending more

and more on materials, knowing that it means an increased burden of rates and that the rates are already too high for the working-class people who have to pay them. I would be obliged, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what steps, if any, he is prepared to take to remedy this evil.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson). I have differed from the Secretary of State on a large number of questions but I am certain there is no one in this House more anxious than he is to raise the housing standards of Scotland and I was grateful to him for the speech which he made on this subject during the Adjournment Debate on 10th June last. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that bad as the housing conditions in rural Scotland may be, in the big cities where human beings are piled one on top of another in great tenements, there are conditions of sanitation which even the rural districts cannot equal. We have just heard something about the conditions in Glasgow. I wish to add that anyone who represents Dundee must also have the question of housing constantly in mind.
In the last month, to give a typical experience, I visited two one-roomed houses in Dundee. The rooms were quite small and each room housed seven people—a father, mother and growing family in each case. These were not condemned houses and it was impossible in the ordinary way for the tenants to get any of the new houses which are being erected by the corporation. The only way in which that could be done would be by making an exchange with a family in a slum house who had become entitled to a house built under the 1930 Act. I understand that in Dundee there is no prospect of houses under the 1935 Act being immediately available for the relief of overcrowding and that they are not likely to be available for two or three years. The cases which I have mentioned are not extreme cases but are typical of a very large number and when one comes across such cases, where parents have growing families and are anxious to get better conditions not only for the sake of the increased comfort but for the sake of mere decency. It is very hard to have to have to tell them that no houses will


be available for the relief of those conditions until a time when probably they will no longer be interested, because their families will have grown up and left home.
My experience and I think it has also been the experience of my colleague in the representation of Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) is that in the last few years there has been a growing feeling there on the subject of housing. When I was first elected for Dundee in 1931 it was a comparatively rare event for people to make representations about their houses. Now I scarcely ever go there without hearing complaints from people about the conditions of their houses or about the general overcrowding. I think that is largely the result of the activity of the local authorities. The very fact that we have managed to produce a large number of houses, principally under the 1930 Act, has created greater discontent with their conditions among those who have been left behind in the older house property. Clearly there is a slowing up in the rate of housing. The right hon. Gentleman was able to give us a total figure of 25,000 houses which it was hoped to complete within a year but he warned us that that was only an estimate and that it was not possible to promise that all those houses would be ready for occupation at the end of the year.
The figures in the report of the Department of Health show that there was last year an appreciable falling-off. For 1936 as compared with 1935 there was a drop from 25,392 to 23,372. In answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) the Secretary of State informed us that no fewer than 15 local authorities were postponing developments or wanted to reduce the number of houses which they originally proposed to build. The reasons are well-known and are clearly set out in the report. This is due to the rise in prices which, in turn, is partly due to the fact that local authorities are building larger houses, but still more is due to the rise in the price of building materials. Whatever the reason, nobody can dispute the fact that the cost is increasing. A good deal was said on the subject the other day at the Convention of Royal Burghs. The Commissioner for Brechin said that in the beginning of December, 1936, contracts were entered into for the erection of a certain number of houses at an average price

of £409 per house. In January of this year another scheme was contracted for, the average price being £423 per house, and in the beginning of March this year in a third scheme the average cost per house amounted to £533. The Commissioner for Dundee said:
Our experience in building schemes recently has brought out a figure which shows that our latest contract has gone up by 23 per cent.
I wrote to Dundee for confirmation of that figure and I am informed that during the present year the price of timber in Dundee has gone up by 70 per cent. and the price of bricks by 20 per cent. and the cost of houses—not comparing larger houses with smaller houses but comparing houses which are similar in every way—has increased during the last nine months by a percentage of between 23 and 25. Though the slowing up may be partly due to shortage of labour—and we are glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take steps to remedy that—it is due still more to the steady rise in prices which has been going on and which, as far as I can see, is likely to intensify during the next few months.
The last speaker referred to the question of monopolies. I am not going to follow him into that, but if there is substance in what he said, I am sure that this House would never refuse to the right hon. Gentleman any powers that he might need to deal with inflated prices occasioned by monopolies in building materials. The point that I want to make is that when you have this steady rise in the price of building, the whole of the increased cost is thrown on to the shoulders of the local authorities. It would not be in order to suggest any amendment of the law in this Debate, but I think I should be in order in drawing attention to a resolution that was passed recently by the Convention of Royal Burghs, which reads:
That for the purpose of relieving overcrowding, the subsidy paid under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, is inadequate, and that it be remitted to the annual Conference to take all necessary steps with a view to securing an increased subsidy such as would enable local authorities to provide suitable houses at reasonable rents.
I hope the Secretary of State has paid due regard to that resolution, It was, I think, rather unfortunate that the Government did not accept, a year or two ago,


a suggestion that was put forward by those of us who sit in this part of the Committee for a more elastic housing subsidy. When we were dealing with the 1933 Act, the Act under which the Government reduced the housing subsidy from £9 to £3, we proposed that, instead of doing that, we should have a subsidy that would vary, according to different circumstances or the needs of different localities, between £3 and £9. I do not want to go back on the Debates that took place on that Bill and on the Bill of 1935, but I think we are justified in pointing out that it might be very useful at present if our suggestion had been adopted at that time.
The Government have sought power under Section 30, Sub-section (2), of the Act of 1935 to provide a higher subsidy in respect of houses in a redevelopment area. Of course, there is a certain condition that has to be fulfilled. The cost has to be more than £10 per house for a period of 40 years. I am looking into this report to see what is being done about redevelopment areas, and I see that already two redevelopment schemes have been approved, and I understand that other authorities are considering similar schemes. Would it be too early for the Under-Secretary of State to tell us whether it will be possible, in the schemes that have already been approved, to use the power to give a higher subsidy for houses that are included in a redevelopment area? If that were done, if the machinery contained in that Sub-section were used, I think it might be a considerable encouragement to local authorities which have not yet adopted that part of the Act to consider using the machinery for redevelopment; and I hope it will be used, because I believe that it is along the lines contained in Section 30 of the 1935 Act that we may be able to deal most satisfactorily in the long run with housing conditions in many of our large cities.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: I did not really intend to take part in this housing discussion, but there has been through all the speeches such a continual recurrence of the questions of labour and costs that it occurred to me that it would be desirable to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State, and through him of the Department, to a part of the report that has been issued by the Scientific and Indus-

trial Research Department. There is a part of that report dealing with building research, and as I put about half-a-dozen points on the last occasion on which I spoke, and none of them were answered, perhaps the Under-Secretary will pay attention to what I am saying to-night. This report makes reference to the large amount of stone that is at present in buildings being demolished and is capable of being re-used. My own personal observation in Glasgow and other cities leads me to believe that there is a very large number of old buildings built with stone which are now being demolished, and, as far as I can see, the material from them is only going to bottom roads. This report says:
With the more durable stones, there is good reason to think that, provided the weathered surfaces and a reasonable thickness of the underlying stone are rejected, the old stone, as regards durability, is as good as new. Examination of the stone from Waterloo Bridge showed that this applied in that case; equally specimens of Portland stone taken from St. Paul's Cathedral proved, on laboratory investigation, to be equivalent to the best of the quarry samples available except for the surface portions.
It is well known that we have machinery at the present time with which we can resurface stone very speedily, and if it were possible expeditiously and economically to draw to a given centre much of that stone, it is possible that it would be in some small measure capable of reducing building costs at least in some parts of the country. According to the report of the Ministry of Labour, I notice that in the return for last month there are no fewer than 1,204 unemployed masons. Up to the present time no reference has been made in the Debate to any tradesmen other than bricklayers, who, I admit, in the main are required, and will be required, for all internal construction, but there is no, reason why, in Scotland especially, the stone of the type of building that has long been associated with that country should not be used to a greater extent than at the present time. I have taken part in discussions with masons themselves, and representatives of the masons in Scotland have been very insistent upon the assertion that building in stone, if attended to with proper regard to continuity of employment in this work, can be made to approximate, if not equal, costs in so far as brick itself is concerned. Therefore, I suggest that


that line might not be lost sight of and that perhaps, in so far as costs are concerned and with regard to the essential conditions of labour, something may be done in that direction.
I want to make only one other reference, which is also in regard to costs. I do not know whether or not the information is available, but in this report of the Ministry of Labour I have paid a little attention to the brickmaking industry. I have found that the total number of workpeople employed in making bricks was 12,391. The method of compilation of the statistics made me doubt whether that was the total of insured persons engaged in this employment, but I am informed by a Member who knows brickmaking reasonably well that that would be the total. I find that the number of workpeople in Scotland engaged on brickmaking is only 159. It appears to me that if Scottish requirements in bricks make it necessary to transport them from England, it will increase costs, and I am therefore wondering whether the Department has information at its disposal whether the potentialities for brickmaking in Scotland have been exhausted. If not, it might be possible to have brickfields situated close to desirable clay if it exists. It appears to me that only 159 out of 12,000 workpeople is a very small proportion so far as Scotland is concerned.
I would like to make a reference to two points which I raised before. I have been advised by letter on one, but not on the other. In the Department's report there is a reference to home visitation and child welfare schemes, in which it is stated that the chief purpose of the visits is to enable the house visitor to advise the mother in matters affecting her own health, individual care, domestic hygiene and home management. I have endeavoured to get from the Department some indication of what they are doing to follow up the circular sent to all authorities in Scotland prior to the maternity Act being passed. The Department drew the attention of local authorities to the fact that domestic helps were essential if the new maternity machinery came into operation. There is no reason why we should spend money in sending visitors to homes in which childbirth is expected to give guidance with regard to

home management when the person who has to manage the home and do the work is not capable of doing it. Therefore, I press again for an answer as to what is being done to urge local authorities to prepare for and supply domestic helps in order to attend homes of a working class character, especially in view of the fact that the personnel of midwives in the future will be different from what it was in the past, when they were able to give domestic help in addition to their other technical qualifications.
I would like to ask the Department to pay attention, through the medium of their inspectors, to the question of maternity homes. This was a matter I endeavoured to bring to the attention of the Department before, but since then I have received, in the form of an answer to a question, details of the number of maternity homes registered and functioning in Scotland. Under the Maternity Homes Act it is possible for a maternity home to have only one qualified person, and that person may be the superintendent herself. All the other nurses associated with her may not be qualified. I am now informed that the total number of maternity homes registered by local authorities in February, 1937, is 146. The total number of nurses employed in the homes is 747. The number of nurses who neither have the Central Medical Board qualification nor are registered in the general part of the Registry of Nurses, number 107. That is to say, one in seven have no qualification or have inadequate qualification. While I admit that if they were spread out in the ratio of one to seven, there would not be much to say about the matter, I hope the inspector will examine the possibility of some maternity homes being run with the superintendent as the only qualified person. If there is not a proper proportion of qualified nurses, I hope the Department will take the matter up and endeavour to rectify it.

8.41 p.m.

Captain W. T. Shaw: I do not want to deal with the question of the housing, but with the question of general health. In the report of the Department of Health it is said that the people who are unemployed and the families of the unemployed do not suffer any more from malnutrition than the families of many people who are


employed in the industrial belts of Scotland. I was surprised to read that, but man does not live by bread alone, and no doubt unemployment has a very deleterious effect on the general health of the people. I was interested to see from the report that men do not suffer so much as the women from unemployment. There is no getting away from the fact that unemployment is a primary cause of bad health, and we are anxious to see it removed. In the part of the country I represent, they are suffering from what I may describe as an Asiatic plague. It affects the small burghs in my constituency and it has been a very serious menace to the health of the City of Dundee, which is so well represented in this House. It takes the form of an uncontrolled flow of jute manufactures from Calcutta which is cutting into the employment of Dundee and the small burghs of my constituency. If the standard of health is to be maintained in that district, something should be done in the near future to restrict this importation. I hope that the Secretary of State will use his great influence to stir up the Government on this question so that something can be done in the near future.
In a White Paper dated yesterday I was interested to see that the Secretary of State is using great pressure, and will use greater pressure, to get a move on to deal with housing conditions in the rural districts of Scotland. I think that that is very essential, for the housing conditions in many parts of rural Scotland are very unsatisfactory. I hope that this additional pressure which is indicated in this Paper may have that effect. It is well that it should be known that the proprietors, many of whom are suffering from shortage of finance, can get 90 per cent. of the money they have to spend to bring these working-class houses into a proper state of repair. I wish that this Paper had said what interest was to be charged to the landlord, and I should be pleased if the Under-Secretary could give me that information.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: As pointed out by the Secretary of State for Scotland, this is the third Debate we have had on housing, and we on this side of the Committee make no apology, despite what was said by the previous speaker, for having chosen housing on a second day given

to Scottish Estimates. In reviewing what has been done since the last Debate the Secretary of State made special reference to the possibility of getting more houses by an augmentation of the supply of labour, the relaxation of the apprenticeship rule in the building industry and the working of overtime, and he also made a special reference to an auxuliary programme of housing. I shall try to deal with all those points, particularly from the administrative point of view, as it affects Scottish local authorities. What I am going to say has special reference to the work to be done in the auxiliary programme of housing. This, I understand, is to be concentrated upon the Special Areas, so as to enable them to carry through schemes which would not be carried through by the local authorities themselves. To make a success of even an attempt to deal with housing it will be necessary in some of these areas—because there are rural areas within Special Area districts—to do something respecting the problem of water supplies. In the last Debate I made special reference to the inadequate sum provided in the Estimates, a sum of £36,000, for assisting the provision of water supplies in rural areas, and I quoted from a memorial prepared by the Association of County Councils to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I will take a little of the time at my disposal in further quoting from that memorial.
Large sums from Government sources have been promised and are in course of being expended on water supply and drainage works in distressed areas in Scotland. That is effecting suitably the double purpose of providing labour for the unemployed and securing the execution of urgently necessary public works.
The memorial went on:
Scottish areas which have not been scheduled as distressed areas may not have as many unemployed, but equally with the distressed areas they have their problems incidental to water supply and drainage which, without further Government aid, seem practically insoluble.
The County Councils Association urge that the Secretary of State should take the question of water supply and drainage in rural areas into his serious consideration with a view to Government aid being made available towards the cost of suitable schemes in areas not scheduled as distressed areas. The fact that this year only £36,000 is provided, as against £70,000 last year, would in itself justify


not only Members on this side but hon. Members opposite who represent rural areas, going into the Division Lobby to-night to protest against the inadequacy of that sum. Houses cannot be built unless there is an adequate water supply.
We make no apology to the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw) for stressing the necessity for housing at every available opportunity, because we are convinced of the necessity for real eneregy and initiative in dealing with housing both in the rural and urban areas. If we did not know it from our own personal experience the report of the Department would justify our protest against the inaction of the Secretary of State for Scotland in some cases and the ineffectiveness of his action in other cases. I will quote from page 24 of the report of the Department of Health:
One common stair in a tenement gives access to 20 back-to-back houses, each of one apartment. Sixty-eight persons live in these 20 houses. Broken plaster, worn and uneven floors, woodwork round windows in disrepair, doors in need of repair, inadequate cupboards, no larder accommodation, recess bed spaces, bug infestation and dampness are found in all these cases.
Let me quote from another report:
A four storey tenement contains 16 houses with access by a common entrance, thence by stairs to the flats above, and thence by common lobbies to the houses. The defects consist of broken wall paper, worn floors … and sagged ceilings. … One of the tenants complained that the bugs dropped into the food. The wife of another tenant gave birth to a child in a bed which the district nurse stated was literally moving with bugs.
This is not a report of housing conditions in some foreign country. This is a report of housing conditions which exist in Scotland in the twentieth century, when we are said to belong to a Christian nation and said to be civilised.

Mr. Guy: Do not those instances suggest inactivity on the part of the local authorities rather than of the Scottish Office?

Mr. Westwood: I admit that in some cases it does, but these particular cases the places have in the main been controlled by men, and women sometimes, of the same political complexion as those who sit on the other side. Consequently, the responsibility must be borne by those who have had administrative opportunities and have not discharged them up to the present time.

Sir Henry Fildes: Are they in Glasgow?

Mr. Westwood: I cannot say where they are, because the report does not state the exact locality. I am quoting from the report of the Department. The shortage of building labour and the augmentation of that labour were referred to by the Secretary of State. Not only is there a shortage of labour, mainly of bricklayers, but the arrangements so far suggested have been altogether inadequate. There is also the problem dealt with by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson). There has been unjustifiable delay in dealing with internal disputes in the trade. On 27th April, I think it was, by a question I put in the House I gave notice, first, to the Secretary of State for Scotland and then, because the question was transferred, to the Ministry of Labour, of a dispute that was taking place between joiners and plasterers as to the fixing of a plaster board. I knew it was taking place, because I was connected with administration in Scotland. A strike was allowed to go on for almost five weeks, with housing held up in many parts of Scotland, because of the inaction either of the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Ministry of Labour. If a dispute was pending between two sections of the building industry and likely to affect housing, all speed should have been used by both the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Labour to bring the two sides together, and avoid at least five weeks of unnecessary loss of time in the building of working-class houses.
The effect on the building of houses was even more serious than that. In many instances, men who were engaged on municipal housing were transferred to the building of cinemas and other classes of work. Speaking from practical experience of the administrative side of the matter, I can say that we actually lost eight or nine weeks of building time. As we were building at the rate of one house per day, we actually lost approximately 60 houses for the working class, in an area where houses are desperately needed. My complaint is not only that there is a shortage of labour but that there has been ineffectiveness in dealing with the labour problem to which I have referred. This is a dispute between sections of my own class, and I am not going to be any more critical of them than I would


be in the case of a dispute between employers.

Mr. Buchanan: The Trades Union Congress would have settled that dispute in five minutes.

Mr. Westwood: It affected the class to which I belong and which are suffering, although it did not affect them, so far as one hour, or even one farthing of the cost of the building, was concerned.
Now a word about the failure to deal with the rise in costs. We are now beginning to experience the tragic effect of the rise in the cost and the refusal on the part of the Government to provide an adequate subsidy. In the last Debate I submitted figures to prove that the costs, between estimates, with only a four months' interval, had increased by £48, £75 and £56 for three, four and five-apartment houses respectively. The Under-Secretary then told us that the rise was not general, but applied to certain areas, mainly the industrial areas of Scotland. Since then I have put questions to the Secretary of State and I have had replies which prove that we were not getting a statement of fact from the Under-Secretary. I do not mean that he consciously tried to mislead us but he did so unconsciously by the statement he made.
What do we find? It is within the knowledge of the Committee, as a result of the questions which I put, that there are 20 authorities who have stopped building—15 was the number given but I can add five more. These include Tayport and others which have discussed the question of building and decided to stop, and St. Andrews, which accepted the advice of its medical officer of health not to go in for building these houses because of the rise in cost and the inadequate subsidy. Since that time, Fifeshire and Dunbartonshire have decided not to proceed, according to the reports in the Press. That makes 20 authorities that have had to stop building because of the increase in cost and the refusal of the Government to increase the subsidy.
These authorities vary from a county like Kinross to an industrial county like Lanarkshire, or from the place like Fort-rose in the North to Stranraer in the South. We have also small places like Kinross and large areas like Lanarkshire.

We have counties like Peebles and others who I have no doubt will decide not to proceed and counties like Fife which cannot proceed because of the rise in costs and refusal of the Government to increase the subsidy. My time is practically finished. I shall try loyally to abide by the 15-minutes rule. In conclusion, I want to comment that we are spending millions of pounds upon schools, the treatment of defectives, hospitals and general medical service. It was estimated by the Department that £19,500,000 was being spent per year upon health services in Scotland in the fight against disease. The necessity for that expenditure is intensified and magnified by the housing conditions of the people, as is proved by the report of the Department and by our own observers.
I believe all parties in the House now admit that Scottish housing is a disgrace to civilisation and a blot upon the face of Scotland. I have not time to say all that I intended to say about it. The primary aim of a health policy should be to promote the fitness of the people, and that can best be done by ascertaining that every family is provided with a decent house at a rent that they can reasonably be expected to pay. Because the Government have miserably failed to deal with the rise in the cost of house-building and to provide adequately increased housing grants to assist local authorities to give effect to that aim, we shall take the only constitutional course open to us to-night of going into the Lobby to vote against the Government, and as a protest at their ineptitude in dealing with the first problem of the rise in costs and their refusal to provide adequate subsidies to enable us to complete our work of housing the working class of Scotland.

9.3 P.m.

Sir H. Fildes: I wish to raise one or two points that have arisen in the course of the Debate. The Mover of the Amendment referred to higher prices, and instanced cement. He pointed out that the export trade in cement was catered for at lower prices than our own market. That can be explained in a certain measure by the fact that cement in bulk is very heavy and that the freight charged to carry it abroad is also very heavy. There are tariffs to overcome in the export market. Those facts account in a measure for the difference between the export price


of cement and the price for home consumption. I am surprised at the emphasis upon the increased cost. We were told that in some cases it would amount to £27, £40 or £45 per house, but a healthy community or corporation can borrow money at something like 3½ per cent. On £40, how much does the interest cost in a year? Only a comparatively few shillings, which will make very little effect upon the rent that has to be charged.
Certainly materials have increased in price, but I have in my constituency lead mines that have been closed because the price of lead has dropped to something like or £7 or £8 a ton, an entirely uneconomic price, and, owing to the closing of these mines, between 100 and 200 people have been thrown out of work. I welcome the return of prices that will enable lead miners and others to get an economic return for their labour, and, when the total of these increases only represents a comparatively negligible amount reckoned as interest on the capital involved, I cannot see any reason why decent citizens should be denied housing owing to such a small difference in interest charges.
I agree with everything that has been said here to-night about the dreadful conditions that obtain in many parts of Scotland. There are cases in my own constituency where the state of affairs is a positive disgrace. But what is it that is standing in the way? Everyone here to-night is talking as though it was an increase of £20 or £30 that was standing in the way, but I cannot subscribe to that idea. If it be the case, I would ask, where is the courage and the discernment of those authorities in Scotland who are responsible for the provision of houses for the people? In Dumfriesshire we have spent very large sums of money in providing ample supplies of water in the rural areas, but all this is to go for nothing, and, because of an increase of a few shillings in costs, people are to be continued in conditions which in many cases are disgraceful. If that be the case, it is a rebuke to the Scottish Office and a rebuke to all the burghs and county councils of Scotland that an increase of a few shillings is preventing and delaying the solution of a national problem. Sir Edward Younger, who, when his health was better, was one of the pioneers of housing in Scotland, struggled long and

hard, and I had looked forward, in view of the promises which were made in regard to the housing programme, to seeing an inroad made on the dreadful conditions that obtain. We have done quite well in some areas, but others have failed most lamentably.
I hope that all those here who are concerned with authorities responsible for housing will emphasise the fact that the increase in capital or interest charges is a very trivial thing. It is due partly to a rise in wages, a very proper thing, with which no one quarrels. The hon. Member who has just spoken told us of the lamentable instance in which two trade unions took seven or eight weeks to settle a dispute, and he suggested that the Minister of Labour should have sent someone down to settle a childish dispute between two responsible bodies of men. I think that that is ridiculous. There is another point. Trade union regulations might well be made more elastic. I do not know if hon. Members are aware of it, but it is a fact that it is against trade union regulations for one trade only so work overtime. It is a regulation that, when one trade is working overtime, all the trades on the job must be paid overtime. That is a rather surprising thing to me, and, indeed it is rather ridiculous—

Mr. Davidson: While most of us regret internal disputes between trade unions on certain questions of demarcation, may I be allowed to point out that the reason for those disputes is not so much the actual piece of work that is being done at the time, but the fact that the allowing of the principle has been used in the past by employers for their own ends. A question of principle is involved.

Sir H. Fildes: However that may be, we are informed that in this case housing was delayed for seven or eight weeks before a settlement was arrived at. I am not belittling the difficulties of trade union leaders in struggling to obtain and maintain reasonable rates of wages, but the hon. Member blamed the Government because the Ministry of Labour and the Scottish Office did not send down to a body of men who struggled and disputed and held up housing for six or seven weeks over some trivial matter which common sense would have settled


in five minutes. I have in mind a case in which it was very important that some concrete floors should be put in speedily, and the men in that trade were asked to work overtime; but the trade union regulation was that all the other people who were working on the job must work overtime also, though there was nothing for them to do, and consequently overtime—

The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid I cannot allow this to be developed, because the Government are not responsible for the trade unions.

Sir H. Fildes: The question was raised on the other side, so perhaps I may be forgiven for having alluded to it. I conclude by saying that I believe it to be absolutely imperative that something should be done with regard to housing. I have heard no insuperable difficulty mentioned here to-night that need stand in the way of bringing about better housing conditions in Scotland. The increase in costs is negligle. Vast sums have been spent in various counties on the provision of better water supplies, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take his courage in both hands and, if the local authorities and county councils will not take steps to provide this very necessary accommodation, that he himself will take steps, either by legislation or under the powers which he already possesses, to see that these conditions are remedied.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I wish to put in a few words for my own little corner in Scotland, but, before doing so, I should like to register at least a mild protest that we are tied down to 15 minutes for the discussion of matters which affect thousands of people in Scotland. On the last occasion on which I had the privilege of addressing the Secretary of State for Scotland on the troubles and grievances of the Western Isles, I also had the major privilege of seeing him sound asleep on the bench opposite at about two o'clock in the morning. That was when we were discussing the Special Areas Amendment Bill. Unfortunately I got nothing whatever for the Western Isles out of that discussion. I am going to deal less at first with housing than with the more general question of health. One of the items in the

Vote is the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, and I wish to draw attention to the difficulty of people in the more outlandish places who have to travel long distances to isolated cases. For the doctors and nurses of this Service, the highest praise is not too high. They are battling with a difficult problem in difficult places, very often in difficult weather, and I must pay a tribute to the very splendid service and work that they give. But I have to draw attention to some of the difficulties which prevent them giving the best service.
One difficulty is transport. It has a very definite bearing upon the health of the communities in these places and it adds to the difficulty of serving the people as they should be served. I know of cases of a doctor having to hire a car from a village half an hour or an hour away from his home, having to travel a long distance to a landing place which is simply a cliff edge, then across by a ferry, which is not a very safe ferry, for a 10 minutes crossing to an island of Bernera in Lewis where he takes another car since there happens to be one on the island, and then has to travel more miles to get to the patient. Imagine a doctor or nurse called in the early hours of the morning in such circumstances. The Secretary of State must be aware of many such cases, but nothing has been done since he and his predecessors took office in the National Governments, to improve the lot of these doctors and nurses in the Western Isles. Obviously the equipment is not always there for the doctor and nurse to use, and often the patient has to be carried the same distance or further than the doctor travels. There are cases where they have to be carried from the far end of Harris (sometimes across hills) down to the roads, if you can call some of them roads, along to Stornoway, to get to the only hospitals which have proper equipment and accommodation. The question of roads cannot be over emphasised. It has to be raised also in connection with the passage of little children to and from school. I object to children having to go as much as three miles, in some cases more, to school in the winter time, sometimes drenched with the rain. The paths over which they have to walk are hardly more than cart tracks. Often they take short cuts over streams through barbed wire fences and things of that kind.
Another development which would greatly assist doctors and nurses, whose work is difficult enough already, would be the extension and improvement of the telephone service in the islands. There is no reason why they should not have automatic exchanges. You may have the case of a nurse having to attend a patient in such a condition that she is not prepared to cope with it. She prefers to have a doctor, and she has to call up a local sub-postmaster at any hour of the night. We recently had a case where the postmaster refused to get up to go to the sub-office telephone. After two or three hours of pressure and persistence, his wife I believe, was finally persuaded to get out of bed and oblige the nurse in her difficulty by permitting her to telephone to Stornoway in order that a doctor might take an hour's journey to the patient. Nurses and doctors should not be dependent upon a telephone service of that kind. It is a matter into which the Secretary of State might well look. It is often difficult for us to divide the right hon. Gentleman into his eight or nine different capacities. He is much more than a Jekyll and Hyde. When we have to deal with health, transport, agriculture or fisheries we are up against the Secretary of State all the time. I sympathise with him, but we have to make this claim upon an eighth of the Secretary of State's attention on the question of improving the telephone service in order to assist the medical service and others.
Another question that is fundamental to sanitation is that of water supply. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are rural areas which cannot raise sufficient money locally to pay for and maintain a water supply service. At the same time he knows that such services are fundamentally necessary to the health of the people. What is he going to do about it? It is no use saying it is impossible because the local people cannot pay for them. If they are fundamental necessities they have to be paid for by someone. The State has no right to neglect the problem any longer or to shelter itself behind committees that are "investigating the matter." I have been told several times that "the matter is under careful review." We are not asking for "careful reviews" any more. The Secretary of State knows the facts or should know them. We do not expect him to be the

sort of genius who has "an infinite capacity for taking pains." It is only a matter of picking the brains of those who know all the facts. These things have been investigated time after time. The question of water supplies is fundamental and I appeal to him to get on with the job. We are dependent in many places on shallow supplies which it is complained are used by cattle as well as human beings; and some of them are not fit for cattle. People have to travel miles some times to get water and take it home in buckets. The water supply must be made plentiful, pure and within a reasonable distance of communities and I hope that the Secretary of State will give the matter his attention now instead of hiding behind inquiries or alleged inquiries. I often find it hard to believe these matters are under review at all.
There is no such thing as communal sanitation in the Western Isles outside Stornoway and perhaps two other towns. That is a disgraceful thing to have to say about any part of Britain. We know that Secretaries of State have been in the habit of going on unofficial cruises to some of the islands in the summer time. They have a look round and it takes them about three days. I wish that I could do the Western Isles thoroughly in a period of three days. The Secretary of State may be able to do so. He does not give such quick results. There is need of decent roads and footpaths for small communities. The Secretary of State should also give his serious consideration to the development of the air service for ambulance purposes in the Western Isles. That should be encouraged. He should get into touch with the people responsible and try to encourage this development of an air medical service.
We have some very bad housing in the Western Isles. There are still many houses of the old stone and thatch variety. In the old days the roof was more important in connection with fertilisation of the ground than as a roof. The soot from the fires in the middle of the house gathered in the thatch and was taken off and put on the land in order to fertilise it. One old gentleman was asked if he had a water supply in his house. He replied sarcastically "Yes, go and look at the house, you will see it coming through the roof." There are still in remoter parts hundreds of these


houses, ill ventilated, dark and many of them insanitary. They are disappearing. however, to the lament of the sentimental. But a good many still stand; some lean and some are staggering in every sense of the word. They have had their day and this is not their day, and it is time the Secretary of State inquired into the problems of the people who are still left in these houses. Fortunately these houses are going out and we have now houses which have been built with Government assistance and others. You would expect that everybody would have rushed to secure one of these houses but, unfortunately, there are criticisms which must be made of these as well. I am prepared to sing their praises as far as sanitation, ventilation and so on are concerned, but there are criticisms which apply to them, too. First, there is a dreary uniformity.
I heard a story of one old chap who tried six "different" houses in a village before he got the one he was looking for. They are exactly alike; no imagination has been shown and they have no architectural beauty. The lack of water supply applies in these new houses built with Government assistance to the specification of the Department of Agriculture. There is no lavatory, no thought of a bathroom and no internal water supply. It is a disgraceful thing that such houses should be built with Government assistance and yet have no proper water supply and sanitary conveniences.
A year or two ago, the assessors of county councils in the north of Scotland suddenly discovered that it was possible to assess the tenants more highly than they had been assessed. In Lewis, at Sandwick Park, people who went into houses under an impression which was broadcast by the Government are now registered as owners and occupiers. But the Secretary of State knows that these people will never be owners of any of these properties. They cannot let their houses to any other person except virtually with the permission of the Secretary of State. These people will never be owners. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) agrees with me because he has the same complaint in his own constituency. I am surprised that we have heard nothing from Members from the Highlands, because it is a thing that is going on all over the Highlands.
The Secretary of State has given me most unsatisfactory answers to questions on the assessment business. Last week he told me that he had nothing whatever to add to these answers. Are these county councils and their assessors in order and within their legal rights in raising at this time the assessments of these houses and assessing these people as owners and occupiers? If not, what action is to be taken by the Secretary of State? If they are within their legal rights, why have they neglected their duty in not having done this several years ago? Can it be wondered that we say that they appear to be breaking the law now or have been ignoring it in the past? We must really have some definite lines to go upon. Are the county councils within their rights in doing this now? If they are, I can understand it; but they must have been wrong in not doing it in the past. If they are wrong in doing it now, we demand that some action should be taken against them to redress this injustice. I do not want to pursue this question further, but it is a most important point, and it is a barrier and a discouragement to re-housing in the Islands of Scotland. Many people are threatening that, if these assessments are raised, they will go back to the old "black" houses. They are under bond and contract, and we know the difficulties there. But all the same, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that this is a discouraging thing. It is going on now and the Secretary of State for the Dominions will know perfectly well that it is going on in his constituency also, and I hope that he will fight it or endeavour, in his persuasive way, to get his right hon. Friend to do something about it.
I should like to have some definite ruling on this matter, because decisions are conflicting, and some are bound, therefore, to be unjust. Nobody is certain of the position, and we want some definite rulings from the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate, or from both. I will not pursue the question further now. We know to-day, as I have proved in this House, that within the conditions and stipulations of the Minister of Labour under the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, the Islands of Scotland and a large part of the Highlands are a distressed area in every sense of the term; even within the stipulations which he himself has laid


down, namely, the serious and long unemployment, and the failure of staple industries—we have proved all these things. They are reduced now—I do not say all parts, as some areas are still fairly prosperous—but the people are reduced, especially in the Islands, bluntly to the dole standard of living. Some are becoming reconciled to it, which is the most demoralising thing of all. We expect the Secretary of State for Scotland to be awake on this occasion. Last time I appealed to him he made it an occasion to be asleep when we were all awake. He has no excuse this time. Because the Islands, like himself, have been so inactive for so long, are they to continue for ever in that state? Is that the attitude? He is going to be surprised unless something is done by the agitation which will be produced, and which I will do all in my power to produce and which my hon. Friends can produce in this House, if necessary, to shame him to action. He should be surprised at the public indignation that will drive him from office unless he does something now or at least in the near future to mitigate the conditions in the Western Isles.

9.39 P.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I agree in the main with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), who in a very graphic way described many of the housing conditions in Scotland. There are many other issues which we could raise—education, health insurance, prisons, and the rest. When we consider the Scottish Estimates, which are the basis of about a score of very important matters, it is always very difficult to choose the particular subject for discussion.
I wish to raise one or two smaller points regarding administration in Scotland, the first of which is the matter which I raised some years ago, and I now ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to look at it anew. As hon. Members well know, there is machinery for appeals in connection with widows' and old age contributory pensions. I have nothing to say against the inspectors of the Department of Health, most of whom I have found very decent and always ready to help. Frequently these appeals are disallowed by the Department of Health and they go to an arbitrator, who is generally the sheriff, as in the case of Lord

Kinross and various others. When a widow applying for a widow's pension, goes before the sheriff we find that the Department of Health is represented by a legal gentleman who knows the Act from beginning to end, while the poor applicant is not represented in any way at all. It is hardly a fair battle, even at times when these people have some representation because the lawyer appearing for the Department, being constantly in attendance, has a unique knowledge of the Act. But it is much worse when widows, as I have seen them in the City of Glasgow and in the West of Scotland and in Lanarkshire, have no assistance at all. Frequently they are ill-equipped with knowledge, and they have to face a lawyer who has a tremendous capacity in dealing with these cases.
It is time that the Scottish Department of Health at least considered the advisability of an applicant appealing for a pension before the Appeal Board having the right of legal representation. As the Lord Advocate knows, the practice in the Criminal Court is that each person is entitled to a form of legal assistance, and the appeal in respect of a widow's
pension is no less important. At least a widow who is possibly in a defenceless state ought to have some right of legal and other assistance to help to equip her in the presentation of her case.
The second point I wish to raise is in regard to the method of the Department of Health in dealing with appeals in connection with public assistance. I raised this point the last time I spoke, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will look at it again. I am coming across, not many, but a number of cases where sick persons, on becoming chargeable to the Poor Law have the amount of assistance actually reduced. It is not unfair to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at least to see that, when a man becomes sick, his already low standard of unemployment benefit should not be reduced. Under the regulations the cost of free meals is not chargeable as income; when local authorities supply children with meals at school they are not taken into account as part of the income, but in regard to the Poor Law they assess free meals as part of the income. The Scottish Department of Health ought to ask the local representatives throughout Scotland at least to bring themselves into line with the regulations that this House


passed, and, in assessing Poor Law relief, the cost of meals to children ought to be exempted from income on that account. May I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the persons who decide the cases of appeal? I have gone into a large number of these appeals and rarely, if ever, have I found the Department of Health interfering with the decision of the local authorities. I would like to be told exactly the persons who give the decisions in these cases and will the right hon. Gentleman tell me, further, in what way do they investigate the cases apart from the bald written statement made by the applicant making the appeal? I should be very grateful for a reply, because at the present time I am finding a very unsatisfactory position arising in regard to this matter.
I should like to turn to the question of housing in my native city of Glasgow, with special reference to my own division. Last Tuesday I put a question with regard to housing in Glasgow. I am not going into the question whether the Glasgow Corporation are right or wrong, but I see before me poor people who are herded together in a way that would be a disgrace to beasts. Whether the fault rests with the city council or the Government, I know not, but whoever is to blame, there are the facts. It is a shocking state of affairs. I find from the reply to my question last Tuesday that over 1,700 houses in my division are condemned as unfit for human habitation. That figure relates to this year. In 12 months the number has only been reduced by 27. At that rate of progress poor people will be condemned to live in those houses for at least 50 years. At that rate at the end of 10 years there will be 270 fewer unfit houses, and at the end of 20 years, 540. If we reckon the average family at about five, it means that many thousands of people are living in these places. It is a shocking and indefensible state of things. I care not who is to blame, but what I am concerned about is that we are living in an age when no human being can defend such a state of things.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman how many applications have been made for houses in Glasgow and the reply was that last year there were over 60,000 applications and this year there have been nearly 8,000 more people wanting

houses. Far from there being a solution, the position is becoming worse. A year ago we were building 2,800 houses in Glasgow and this year almost a similar number. The figures are that on 30th June, 1936, there were under construction 2,437 houses for overcrowding and slum clearance and for ordinary purposes, without State assistance, 259, a total of 2,687. This year at the same period there were in course of construction for overcrowding and slum clearance 2,637 and under construction for ordinary purposes 202, a total of 2,839, as against 2,687 last year. There is practically no change.

Mr. Maclean: Might the hon. Member not ask the Secretary of State to reconcile the figures that he gave to the hon. Member on that occasion and the figures he gave to the Committee earlier this evening?

Mr. Buchanan: I am only taking the figures that are published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. T. Henderson: The fact is that the year for computation in Glasgow ended in June, and the Corporation say that they have prepared and under construction for this year 1937–38, 4,953 houses.

Mr. Buchanan: The date given in the answer which I received is up to 30th June, which is after your date. The figures for under construction and not started show an increase. Every kind of house is included, with and without State assistance. There is an increase in those prepared for but not begun. Last year the figure was 1,416 and this year 2,080. Take my division alone. There are 1,700 houses unfit for human habitation. As regards overcrowding, the position is appalling. If I were selfish I should almost welcome some local authorities stopping building houses, because then one would expect there would be more available labour for other places. My division might then get a little more housing, but I hope the problem will not be solved by my place being played off against some other place. Each place requires human consideration.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us about an increase in building labour. I suppose that is all to the good, but is there no other way, without attacking trade union conditions and standards, to


get at this problem? I cannot defend the present conditions. Who could defend six people living in a single apartment in my division? This sort of thing seems to go on for ever. In housing we seem to make little progress compared with the progress made in ordinary commercial building. I often wonder why in Scotland, when we are engaged in a fairly big housing scheme, that we do not use the tubular scaffolding which is so excellent in commercial building. It is easy to handle. Why is it that the bricklayer cannot be under cover? Could not something be done to enable the bricklayer to keep on with his work, without having to give up in wet weather? Surely, this is a problem that we could conquer. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) about stone. Why not adopt stone in order to give us something more in the nature of housing? Trade is a little better, and every time that trade improves the demand for houses becomes more clamant. Cannot something be done to ease this terribly growing problem in Glasgow and elsewhere? It is a matter which brooks no delay. It may be that the difficulties are great, but I am certain that in these days an enlightened community will not tolerate its continuance. It is costly in rates and in health, and I trust that the Secretary of State will turn his attention to it with as much capacity, understanding and courage as he can possibly put into it.
We are often told that we must defend ourselves against a foreign invader, but I have often felt that people who are living under these conditions have very little to defend. If this is all that modern civilisation can provide for them, then I could not make an appeal to them to defend these terrible conditions. Most of our burdens have to be carried by these people. They have to join the Army and go into the trenches and fight. I doubt whether they come back to anything which is much better than the trenches. When they are in the trenches they only see other men suffer as well as themselves but when they come back to the slums of Glasgow they see not only men but women and children suffering. When children are brought into the world in such conditions as these we are condemning them from the first day of their birth to a shocking and disgraceful life. It is

not fair to us, and it certainly is not fair to the children.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Guy: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) when he stresses the urgency and gravity of the housing problem in Scotland. In my own division in Edinburgh the conditions are very much the same as they are in Gorbals. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) rather suggested that the Secretary of State was not alive to the gravity of this problem, but the Committee will remember that shortly after he took office the right hon. Gentleman challenged local authorities and urged them to face the problem and accelerate their programmes. The local authorities gave two excuses, shortage of labour and shortage of certain materials, bricks and timber in particular. The Secretary of State with much ingenuity and earnestness has endeavoured to remove as rapidly as possible these two excuses behind which local authorities and urban areas have been definitely sheltering. So long as these two excuses remained unremoved local authorities would have slowed up their programmes. Therefore, I specially welcome the suggestion for alternative types of construction.
It is said that there will be an inquiry and experiments by the new company under the direction of the Commissioner for the Special Areas in concrete and timber construction. I am not an expert in these matters. I understand that at the present moment there is a definite shortage in timber, but I do know that an experiment was made in concrete houses in Edinburgh in 1925, they were called the poured or corolite concrete houses. They were built at a time of a temporary shortage in bricks. I have seen these houses and have asked the tenants what they think of them from the point of view of warmth in winter and weather proofness, and the reports I have received which have been confirmed by the Department of Health, are that although the design may be rather ugly they are a perfectly satisfactory type. In my opinion the whole value of these houses, whether they are of concrete or timber or any other kind, is not that they would displace in normal times ordinary construction but that at the present moment, when there is a shortage of bricklayers and bricks, they would be a most valuable


help to the programme which local authorities have in hand.
The Secretary of State gave the estimated total of new houses to be built by local authorities in 1037 as 17,000. I doubt very much whether that total will be completed. If 15,000 or even 14,000 houses are completed, local authorities will be doing very well, but if they apply their energy to the alternative types of construction, to which the Secretary of State is urging them, I see no reason why in 12 months' time we should not have a total not of 14,000 but of 20,000 houses, and perhaps 25,000 houses. The hon. Member for Gorbals referred to the number of condemned houses in his division. In Edinburgh we have to total of condemned and overcrowded houses which, at the present rate of progress, will take 30 to 35 years to eliminate. Are we to accept that state of affairs? The Committee will agree that it may be impossible, in the present circumstances of shortage of labour and shortage of materials, to eliminate slums and overcrowded houses in the short space of some three or four years, but I see no reason why the problem should not be largely removed within five or 10 years. It is not a question of trying to allocate blame to local authorities or to the Department of Health or to any individual; it is rather a question of trying to get better cooperation between the central Department and local authorities. I believe local authorities are anxious to play their part if adequate facilities are given, and I hope the Secretary of State will continue to give them every encouragement in their efforts.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I want to try to get the Secretary of State to organise Scotland and to see that we get the houses which are required. I am perfectly satisfied. after all the years I have been here and all the speeches I have made to all manner of Governments, that every hon. Member is in favour of what we are asking. The conditions of housing in Scotland are a standing disgrace. Hon. Members opposite are moved by sympathy and by humanitarian ideas in this matter, but with us it is a question of stern reality. We were born and bred and lived in those terrible housing conditions. Some of us reared our families in those conditions, and we were glad to

get away from them. Memory has a tendency to make fanatics of us all. With regard to the increase in the price of houses, my information is that in London a similar house has been increased in price by £80, and because of the increase house building is being stopped all over the country. That was the reply given just now by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Those who have been privileged to listen to the Debate to-night must understand from it the terrible conditions of housing that prevail in Scotland. The shortage of houses is absolutely appalling. With all due respect to every other constituency, there is in no part of the British Isles a constituency which compares with the Clydebank in overcrowding. In the Clydebank we cannot get houses built; everything is held up, largely because of the price. There is no shortage of skilled labour. There is no shortage of material. The material is being used elsewhere. I cannot agree that because the price has increased house-building must be stopped. Have we ever heard of the building of a battleship being stopped because the price of material had increased? Have we ever heard of the making of a gun being stopped because the price had increased? It is true that in a case of that kind the Government make inquiries and probably make a protest against the increase. They have done that time and again, but stop the programme—no, Sir! In no case has that been done.
We are engaged in a most serious war against the housing conditions of our country. It is a real war. A shortage of houses is our real enemy. There is a shortage of places for the people to sleep in. We are told that the Government are determined, if necessary, to spend £1, 500,000,000 on Defence. But here is our real enemy. The Prime Minister is concerned—and I support him—about raising the physical standard of the people of the country. How can one raise the physical standard of children who have been brought up in circumstances such as are familiar to every hon. Member who comes from the West of Scotland—indeed to every hon. Member who comes from any big industrial centre in this country?
Another feature which makes the problem more difficult is that during our life-


time there has been produced a new race in this country. The standard of life in Great Britain has gone up by 100 per cent. Our people are better educated, they have increased wages, they dress better, they go to cinemas, picture galleries and museums, and all those things have a tendency to raise the standard of life of the people. We have done our utmost to raise the standard of life, and one of the results of its being raised has been to make people more conscious than were their fathers and mothers of the terrible conditions in which they live. Therefore, there is being bred discontent of a character which is a menace to the welfare of the country. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will bear that in mind.
It is not as though we had not got positive proof that from a commercial point of view the building of houses for our people is a paying proposition. On the borders of my constituency there is the Knightswood housing scheme. There Glasgow has housed more people than there are in the town of Perth, and from the health point of view it has proved to be a commercial proposition. What could be more glorious than to spend money in order to wipe away the terrible picture portrayed by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) tonight? We have the power to do that. There never were men and women more capable of dealing with the problems confronting them than are the men and women of to-day.
They have taken people from the tenements to Knightswood—taken them out to nature—and the result has been a decrease in the death rate. It is true that epidemics may come to that part of Glasgow as to other parts, but because the children there have better sleeping accommodation and get fresh air, they are better able to resist them. The result is that it has paid Glasgow to undertake that scheme. As far as police are concerned, with a population as big as that of Perth, there is only one policeman. The Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of the conditions that prevail there at the moment. Surely, we could have a gigantic scheme of that nature throughout Scotland. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made some arrangement with the trade unions and with the building industry, employers as well as workmen. That is

very good, but I beg him not to allow anything to stand in the way of a vast continuous programme of house building. Augustus Caesar boasted that he found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble. I believe that was an exaggeration, but I want the Secretary of State for Scotland to be able to boast, when he finishes, that he found Scotland a land of slums and left it a land of happy homes. If he does that, all Scotland will bless him.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Maclean: I was about to compliment the First Lord of the Admiralty on his extreme modesty. Instead of taking his usual seat on the Government Front Bench I noticed that he retired to the second bench and I though that was an indication both of his interest in Scottish matters and of his desire not to intrude in the Debate. The Secretary of State in his review of circumstances in Scotland, referred to a circular which he has issued and which purports, at all events, to deal with rural housing in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) criticised the work which has been done there and did so very effectively, but if anything is done as a result of this circular, I am sure that nobody will be better pleased than not only my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles, but also the Members for other constituencies, which are situated in the large towns.
Since I first became a Member of this House I have seen the issue of many circulars on the subject of housing from both the English Ministry of Health and the Scottish Department of Health. We have had Circular after Circular, and Housing Act after Housing Act. We have had subsidies granted, subsidies reduced, subsidies abolished, subsidies reintroduced and subsidies increased. But with all these attempts by various Governments since 1918 the housing problem in this country has in my opinion, as far as the population living in the older parts of our towns is concerned, become accentuated. The position is worse now than it was in 1918. The Secretary of State says that there is a shortage of labour and he is trying to remedy that shortage by arranging for consultation between the employers, the employés and the Department, with a view to arranging for the introduction of more apprentices into certain trades in the building in-


dustry. Does that mean that if the Government and the two other parties mainly interested come to an agreement for an increased number of apprentices in those trades, the people of Scotland will have to wait until those apprentices become journeymen and in their turn train other apprentices, and so on, before we get the housing accommodation which is required to-day? Optimism is always breathed by the representatives of the Government when they tell us at that Box about the intentions of the Government. Year after year report follows report, but the conditions of the people of the country have not improved in the degree which is necessary to keep pace with the advance of the world.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke of the conditions in his area. The conditions in my area as regards the slum districts are just as bad. So are the conditions in Maryhill, in Clydebank, in Greenock and even in Edinburgh. Along the "Royal Mile" where their Majesties the King and Queen passed only a week ago, if you go down some of the closes and wynds and pends, you will find slums that are a disgrace to any country calling itself Christian or civilised. Year after year the same story has to be repeated from that Box. My constituency is probably not as bad as that of the hon. Member for Gorbals. When I came into this House in 1918 about two-thirds of the constituency of Govan, industrial as it was considered to be, was farmland—there were six or seven farms there—but all that land is now taken up by housing schemes undertaken by the Corporation of Glasgow. Gorbals is a closed area, with no open space that can be taken in for building extensions, and Maryhill and Tradeston are in practically the same condition. Members for those divisions and for divisions like them have to go down week after week into their constituencies and have their constituents coming to them and pleading with them to do everything they can to find them housing accommodation so that they can get cut of the horrible slums in which they are at present compelled to live.
I wonder that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has Kelvingrove Park in his own constituency, and with two or three of the well-to-do houses in Sandy-ford, but also with a slum portion down

in the dockland of Glasgow, with William Street, Piccadilly Street, and streets of that character in his division—I wonder that he comes to this House to hold out such high hopes of what the Circular that he read to us to-night will do for rural housing in Scotland. I wonder how he can be under the impression evidently that what he is arranging with regard to the committee between employers and employés in the building industry will solve the housing problem in his own division and in mine. He will waken with a rude shock from that very rosy-tinted dream that he is dreaming, and I hope he will do, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and put some vigour into this campaign. The hon. Member said, quite truly, that when you want to build a fleet you do not worry about the increased prices of the ships that are to be built, and you do not worry how prices go up when you want Government work done of any other sort.
There is no real shortage of labour in the building industry. Go over any part of London to-day, and you will find huge skyscrapers of luxurious flats being built, rented at from £100 upwards. There is plenty of labour for them and for luxury cinemas, but there is not plenty of labour for workers' houses. The Government say they have a reconstruction policy. Had they not better commence with it? If there are too many workers in one area to suit the Government when they want Government work done, do they not transfer the workers from that area to the place where they want more of them? If that can be done in the case of Government work, if the Government can see to it that their work is not slowed down for lack of workers, why, in heaven's name, do they not do the same thing when it comes to building workers' houses and clearing out the slums?

Mr. Gallacher: The Minister is asleep.

Mr. Maclean: The Secretary of State for Scotland is never wider awake than when his eyes are closed. He is taking in all that is being said. If he will act on what is being said he will be more active. His eyes will then be open and his feet will come off the table. I want to appeal to him as the representative of the Government and as an individual, who in the past has been put forward by the Press and by Members of his party and by


people in various walks of life as one of the live wires in the Cabinet, to justify that compliment and to put up a fight for Scottish housing. He will find that he has the Scottish people behind him in anything he demands and insists on being done, because even those who are in comfortable homes in Glasgow, Edinburgh and every part of Scotland desire to see every other individual in a comfortable home. They desire to see the slums wiped out of existence—and put out of existence in a different way from that in which they abolished slums in Dundee.
I ask the Secretary of State what he intends to do. He was very generous to Scottish Members to-day. He sent us a Circular about rural housing and was quite enthusiastic about it. He explained it by running over the paragraphs and told us what it meant to the rural workers. We were, however, told the same thing about the industrial constituencies. In every Housing Act that has been passed by the House the same promises were held out to us. I hope that the Secretary of State, during the three months that he is away, during the period when he is going round the Western Isles in the fishery cruiser, will, with the fresh air about him and the breezes of the Western Isles, get some of the imagination that the Western Isles are supposed to bring to people, and will come back to the mainland determined that, with all the Acts and the powers that he possesses, he will do everything he can for housing. I hope that he will speed up the local authorities who are expected to destroy the shoddy building of a hundred years in the course of a few years. Let him come back and put some breeze into his housing programme and behind the local authorities exert some influence over the employers and employés in the building industry, and erect in Scotland houses for the people, comfortable homes in which a generation can arise that will not merely bless him, but will be his greatest monument to the work he has done as Secretary of State.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I was certainly in agreement with the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Westwood) when he claimed that he need not apologise for raising yet one more Debate on the subject of Scottish housing. When a man is in good health his friends do not inquire after him very often, but

if he is going through a serious illness they naturally desire to have frequent statements about his condition. So it is now with Scottish housing, which is going through a very critical period, and hon. Members are entitled to be kept constantly and well informed on the subject. When we last discussed this matter, on 24th June, we scarcely had time to deal with it as thoroughly as it deserved, and my right hon. Friend was not in a position to give the definite information which he had hoped to be able to give on that day on the results of the negotiations with the building industry which had then been proceeding for some six months. To-night hon. Gentlemen have again returned to the same charges and raised the same questions which we discussed three weeks ago. They have asked us what we are going to do to bring down the cost of building, what we are going to do to improve the supply of labour, to control the rise in the price of materials—to check all those factors which have caused this marked, and we hope temporary, increase in building costs in the industrial parts of Scotland. I think it is highly important that we should be well aware of those things which have caused this increase in the price of houses and I ask the Committee to allow me to give a thorough explanation of that rise.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs said that I had misled him last month when I said that the rise in prices had not been uniform, but only applied to its greatest extent in certain places, and he quoted a number of authorities which had been prevented from proceeding with housing programmes on account of this rise in building costs. If I misled the hon. Gentleman it must have been because I expressed myself badly, because nothing which he said was inconsistent with what I intended to say, which was that the big rise in costs had only taken place in the industrial belt, in those counties running across the centre of Scotland where the greater part of our population is congregated. All those authorities which the hon. Member quoted this afternoon in Fife, in Peebles and elsewhere are, of course, in those areas in respect of which I did say that the increase in building costs had been most heavy.

Mr. Westwood: Are Montrose and Stranraer in that area?

Mr. Wedderburn: I think it is important that we should get a correct view, and I have had prepared a table of costs in various burghs and counties in different parts of Scotland showing the comparative increases in prices in respect of three-roomed houses between the first quarter of 1936, that is more than a year ago, and the second quarter of the present year, in which we are now. Some of them are very high, some of them are not so high. I take Annan Burgh in Dumfriesshire. The cost in the first quarter of 1936 was £404, and at the present time it has risen to £412. That is an increase of only £8, although, of course, the cost in 1936 was slightly above the average for that moment. Take the Burgh of Forfar; for the first quarter of 1936, the cost of a three-roomed house was £317. To-day it is £341; an increase of only £24.

Mr. Westwood: Did the hon. Gentleman say that that was the Burgh of Falkirk?

Mr. Wedderburn: No, Forfar. In Hawick in the county of Roxburghshire, a year ago the price of a three-roomed house was £318 and it is now £372, an increase of £54. In the County of Aberdeen, the price has risen from £422 to £457, an increase of £35. Let me take one or two larger increases. In Westlothian it has risen from £297 to £417, an increase of £120; in Glasgow, from £287 to £381, an increase of £94; in Johnstone a very big rise from £424 to £568, an increase of £144.

Mr. Dunn: In order that we might properly understand this matter would the Under-Secretary tell us the superficial area of these houses instead of merely stating that they are three-roomed houses?

Mr. Wedderburn: I have not the superficial area but the houses are all the same. They are local authority houses as approved by the Department of Health, and the area is slightly larger than the area of the corresponding houses in England. That is not the point; I am taking these figures simply to illustrate the diversity of the increases which have taken place.

Mr. Mathers: Is the hon. Gentleman comparing like with like?

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, Sir. I have also the figures for the four-roomed

houses, but I do not wish to delay the Committee by reading them. My only purpose is to illustrate their diversity, and the figures are widely different from each other, showing that the increase is lot uniform to all parts of Scotland.

Mr. Maclean: Since the hon. Gentleman is not giving us all the figures, would he circulate them, so that Scottish Members may have them?

Mr. Wedderburn: If they are of interest to any hon. Member I will certainly do so. I am not giving the figures for their own sake but to illustrate the argument which I am about to develop. The average increase for all parts of Scotland in respect of three-roomed houses, over the period I am taking, was £111. How much of that increase is due to a rise in the price of materials and wages? The Committee have already been informed that the average figure is, as nearly as it can be calculated, £40. In those parts of Scotland and in nearly the whole of England where there is not great congestion of building work, the cost of houses on the average has increased by approximately £40 or £50, just about the amount of the increase in the price of labour and of materials, while in those parts of Scotland where there is congestion and this terrible pressure upon the work of the industry, the average cost of a three-roomed house has risen over £100, so that we have a difference of more than £60 to account for.
First of all, comes the cost of materials. Some hon. Members have quoted figures which they have obtained from various sources suggesting that these increases are higher than they ought to be. In a period when we are recovering from deep industrial depression, it is natural and normal that there should be some increase in the price of commodities and in the amount of wages. An hon. Member mentioned timber. The price of timber, of course, since about 1929 or 1930 has been depressed to an altogether abnormal extent, and the rise which has taken place in the price of timber, although on a percentage basis it seems high, has not yet brought it back to the level at which it stood before 1929. We are, of course, keeping a very close watch on the prices of these materials, and I am not going into the merits of all of them, but am merely putting the


general point that, at a period like this, it is natural to expect some rise in the price of commodities and some rise in the cost of wages. As I have already explained, in England and in those parts of Scotland where there is not heavy pressure on the building industry, the cost of housing has only increased by the amount which is due to this rise in the price of materials and wages, that is to say, about £40 or £50.
Before I pass from materials and wages to the remainder, which is by far the more important part that we have to consider, I want to refer to the observation of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) about bricks. He gave some figures of the number of workmen employed in brickworks in Scotland. I have not with me any information on that point, and I cannot make any comment about the hon. Member's figures of the number of men engaged in the manufacture of bricks in Scotland or in England; but I have for some time been closely concerned with the production of bricks, and I can give the hon. Member the figures for the total production of bricks in Scotland. Last year we could produce, I think, about 550,000,000 bricks in Scotland alone. This summer we were rather concerned about the shortage of bricks, and we had a conference with brick manufacturers on 7th June. representing to them the need for greatly increasing their output. We found that a large number of new brickworks are being erected and old ones extended, and it is estimated that by the end of the present year the output in Scotland alone will have increased by a further 80,000,000 bricks, which will be sufficient to prevent any shortage in the meantime. We have represented to the brick manufacturers that next year, when we hope we shall have got more labour and when there will be more building in various kinds of categories, that quantity will not be sufficient, and that we think there ought to be a further increase of production next year; but so far as we are aware there is no danger of our having to import any more bricks from England, and I do not think that, so far as we can see at present, the shortage in Scotland is likely to be acute.
I come now to by far the most important part of this rise in building prices

which we are considering—not the £40 which is due to the rise in the price of materials and to increased wages, but the remaining £60 or £70 which is not accounted for by either of these two factors. Obviously there must be some local reason for it, because there is no difference in the organisation of labour and of capital between, let us say, Forfar and Kirkcaldy, or between London and Glasgow, which would account for so great a disparity. There must be some peculiar local reason which has caused this exceptional rise in the Scottish industrial districts, and I do not think we need go very far to seek it. Suppose that a building firm is offered a new contract. Suppose that the price of building has gone up by £40. Suppose that the firm will be able to execute the work in six months with a sufficient supply of labour. There is then no reason, of course, why the firm should quote a higher increase than But suppose that the firm knows that it will not be able to get sufficient labour to complete the contract in six months. Suppose that it knows that the contract will probably take 18 months or two years, during which time its overhead costs will be maintained at the same level. That will naturally increase the charge very much, and, added to that, there is the uncertainty of what may happen to prices in the meantime. When you have building firms which cannot even compete with the work that they have in hand at the moment and, beyond that, have a large number of houses which they have contracted to carry out at a certain price but have not begun, when they are now asked to undertake still further work, it is not astonishing that they are quoting prices which will cover the risk of taking a very long time to complete or failing to carry out their contract.

Mr. Westwood: Am I to understand that the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the vocal authorities are not to proceed any further with taking any estimates for any of their other schemes because of the schemes already in hand?

Mr. Wedderburn: No, I am merely dealing at the moment with the reasons for this large increase in price and, when we remember the figures that my right hon. Friend has given, I do not think


we can be surprised. There are 25,000 houses now under construction but not yet completed and 13,000 houses contracted for at a price already fixed but not yet begun. That is far more than we have ever had before, but it is not for that reason a matter for satisfaction, because it is due not to a greater amount of building but to slower building. What it means is that, at the present rate of building, these 25,000 houses now being constructed, and the further 13,000 which have not yet been begun though the contracts have been signed, will take another 24 months from now to build unless our rate of building can be accelerated. In these circumstances can we wonder, the building trade in industrial parts of Scotland being overburdened like this, knowing that anything further that is undertaken may never be completed at all, or at least that any further contracts may take years to finish, not knowing what will happen to their costs, that the price of building should have risen by some £60 or £70 per house above the figure that we ought to expect from the rise in price of materials?

Mr. Gallacher: It is a terrible argument that the hon. Gentleman is using. The worse the service, the higher the cost.

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not see the relevance of the interruption.

Mr. Gallacher: You say that, if houses can be built in six months, that is good service. If they cannot be built for 18 months, which is bad service, the builder is entitled to another £70.

Mr. Wedderburn: If you begin them now and finish them in six months it costs less than if you begin now and cannot finish them for two years. The hon. Member has misunderstood the argument. What I wished to establish first was the reason for this increase in cost. What we now have to consider is the remedy. How are we to deal with that shortage? It is obvious that an increased subsidy would do nothing whatever to accelerate the completion of the 25,000 houses now under construction or to hasten the commencement of the 13,000 contracted for but not yet begun. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) spoke of alternative methods of construction. We are certainly anxious to pursue any alternative method which may hold out hope of being useful, but at present I should certainly not be justified in telling

the Committee that any alternative method of construction that we are at present examining is likely to be anything more than a mitigation of our difficulties. It certainly will not remove them altogether. It has also been suggested that we might put a prohibition on luxury building so as to release a larger amount of labour for the essential work of slum clearance. That is a thing which, if we had to do it, we should only do with great reluctance. Hon. Gentlemen may remember that the Government in 1921, when a similar difficulty existed, gave power to the local authorities to stop luxury building. That power was never used. There was never any case in which a local authority thought it right and justified to make use of that power.

Mr. Buchanan: Glasgow Corporation did it. They were turned down and appealed to the sheriff.

Mr. Wedderburn: Anyhow, it was never put into force. When you have a general expansion of commerce and housing there is a great deal of other building beside housing which must be done. When you have a slum clearance scheme you have to build new schools for the children. Why should you not build a new cinema for their entertainment? I think the public would regard it as rather a poor solution if at a time when we still had more than 200,000 persons unemployed in Scotland we were to attempt to deal with the problem by cutting down the amount of available work.
At the same time, a certain balance must be preserved. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) told us that while there were big housing schemes under construction in his constituency with only four of five bricklayers employed on them he knew large cinemas which had a dozen or 15 workers employed on them. That could not be looked on by anybody as a right balance and it is the duty of all those concerned in the building industry and local authorities to keep a watch on that state of affairs.

Mr. Davidson: And the Government.

Mr. Wedderburn: Certainly, that goes without saying. We have now been conscious of this difficulty most acutely ever since November. My right hon. Friend has been applying his mind to it


ever since then, and after studying it all these months I can see no other solution than that we have been pursuing—that is, to do all we can to get an increase in the available amount of labour. That is the root cause of all this difficulty. My right hon. Friend explained the agreement which has been reached to take on one apprentice to every three journeymen instead of one to every four journeymen in those areas where the necessity for additional labour is established. The question of whether the necessity does exist will be decided by the local committees of the joint building council. At the same time there is the agreement about overtime, which will mean a further increase in the amount of work which can be got through. It takes a long time to take on the necessary labour and train it. No one could expect to get everything we want at once and I do not think that this present increase will be sufficient to supply all we want next year. The trade has agreed to establish a Joint Consultative Committee which will constantly keep under review the need of the industry for more labour.
I have purposely emphasised our difficulty because I am sure that when you are faced with a difficulty of this kind the right thing to do is to explain it frankly so that the country and particularly all those concerned in the work of housing may be able to see what is the best means of overcoming it. I have said nothing at all to-night about the progress which we have made in the last four years, because I think that the Committee are already well aware of the extent of that progress. If you compare our present rate of slum clearance with the rate for any year previous to 1933, it is exceedingly satisfactory, but if you compare it with the needs of our country, it is not at all satisfactory.

Mr. Buchanan: That does not apply to Glasgow.

Mr. Wedderburn: It might in terms of slum clearance, though perhaps not in regard to working-class houses in general. It is unsatisfactory because it is not sufficient to remove slums, let alone over-crowding, within a reasonable period of time. Hon. Members may recall that in 1933, when we began our slum clearance

campaign, it was hoped that both in England and in Scotland slums would all be removed in five years, that is, by the end of 1938. Since then we have removed 43,000 slums in Scotland, a far higher rate—five or six times higher—than anything ever done before. Yet if you add on to those houses which are already scheduled as unfit, those which ought to be scheduled and would be scheduled if there was any immediate prospect of replacing them, the Department of Health estimate is that there are probably still another 50,000 houses to be removed, and we are now half way through 1937. I am speaking of slums alone, apart from overcrowding.

Mr. Buchanan: You have only cleared 27 in my division in a year.

Mr. Wedderburn: We certainly shall not remove them by the end of 1938. Shall we remove them in another five years after that? That entirely depends upon the additional provisions for increasing the supply of labour which we are able to make now. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) said a good deal about the building unions. I should like to say that we are grateful for the spirit in which the building unions have carried on these negotiations. I do not complain of the delay, although it is very often galling to us. The unions are bound to be very cautious in the interests of their own members and to examine very carefully the future prospects of employment in the industry, so that the future cessation of building may not throw the people out of work who are now being taken on. Although the constant delays which go on from time to time are often discouraging, neither my right hon. Friend nor I have ever thought of complaining, or would ever be justified in complaining of them.
I would only say, not by any means to trade unions alone, but also to the employers and to everybody else concerned in the production of houses, that they should reflect that while these delays go on, or if any delay goes on in future in the working of the joint Consultative Committee, thousands of people in Scotland will have to go on living month after month in conditions of the most hideous squalor from which they can never escape. I am confident that if not only those engaged in the building trade, but the local authorities and ourselves


bear that consideration in mind, we shall be able, without prejudice to the future prospects of employment in the building industry, to raise our rate of production to the height which is necessary to fulfil the needs of the country.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,348,401, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 170.

Division No. 306.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Hollins, A.
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Westwood, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mander, G. le M.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.





NOES.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Dodd, J. S.
Higgs, W. F.


Atholl, Duchess of
Donner, P. W.
Holmes, J. S.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hulbert, N. J.


Beechman, N. A.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Duggan, H. J.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Eastwood, J. F.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Eckersley, P. T.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Brass, Sir W.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Keeling, E. H.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Elliston, Capt. G. S
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Bull, B. B.
Errington, E.
Lees-Jones, J.


Butler, R. A.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lewis, O.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Everard, W. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Fildes, Sir H.
Locker-Lampoon, Comdr. O. S.


Channon, H.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Furness, S. N.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Colman, N. C. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Gluckstein, L. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Goldie, N. B.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Cox, H. B. T.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Crooke, J. S.
Grimston, R. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.


Cross, R. H.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Moreing, A. C.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Guy, J. C. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hannah, I. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Harbord, A.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Dawson, Sir P.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Munro, P.


De Chair, S. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Nall, Sir J.




Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Petherick, M.
Savery, Sir Servington
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Scott, Lord William
Watt, G. S. H.


Pilkington, R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Procter, Major H. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsden, Sir E.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Rankin, Sir R.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rayner, Major R. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wise, A. R.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Sutcliffe, H.



Remer, J. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Thomas, J. P. L.
Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Colonel Kerr.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Blathers: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Shanklin and Ventnor Gas Company and the Sandown Gas and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 22nd day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Worksop Gas Company, which was presented on the 28th day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Ormskirk District Gas Company, which was presented on the 29th day of June and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — SPAIN (BRITISH SHIPPING).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: We have very few opportunities of going more into detail than we can do at Question Time on certain issues, and it is on a very important question that I wish to detain the House to-night, As hon. Members are aware, after the fall of Bilbao many refugees fled to Santander. On the way to Santander they were bombed and machine-gunned in the way that women and children have been bombed and machine-gunned in the war that is going on in Spain. When these women and children—non-combatants—arrived at Santander, they sought to be evacuated, and accordingly the Basque Government chartered or secured ships for the purposes of evacuating those non-combatants.
The attitude that has been taken up by the Admiralty is this. They say that we are not entitled to send our warships into territorial waters; but the Government have always said that they are prepared to evacuate refugees. The Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said so on 22nd June and on 1st July, and they omitted any reference to territorial waters in their answers, and spoke of evacuating refugees in case of bombardments. On 1st July, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said:
His Majesty's naval authorities are being requested to provide naval protection for the "Habana" to proceed from Bordeaux to Santander."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 1st July, 1937; col. 2157, Vol. 325.]
There is no question of any three-mile limit there. On 22nd June, the Prime Minister, when asked a question on this matter, said:
His Majesty's Government will be prepared to continue protection by British warships to ships carrying Basque women and children to France."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1937; col. 1025, Vol. 325.]


He went on to give certain conditions to be fulfilled, those conditions referring to genuine non-combatancy. Lately that pledge appears to have been broken and the ships which have attempted to reach Santander have been interfered with. They are not attacked inside territorial waters. The First Lord of the Admiralty will correct me if I am wrong, but I am informed that no Spanish insurgent warships enter territorial waters, because if they do they come into danger from the shore batteries. There has been no evidence in any answer which we have had to the many questions that have been put to the First Lord that Spanish insurgent warships have ever been inside territorial waters. All they do is to lie outside territorial waters and have heavy-range guns to fire at our ships in territorial waters.
Then the Admiralty take up this attitude. They say that what they mean by protecting our ships from attack on the high seas is that if either party is in territorial waters when one of our ships is in territorial waters, although she is attacked from the high seas—because they are attacked from the high seas—the Admiralty gives no orders to interfere. What has happened in the case of several ships—the "Molton" was one of them—is that an insurgent cruiser outside territorial waters, almost alongside of British ships, fires into territorial waters and when our ship comes out on to the high seas, having gone in empty to fetch refugees—having committed that offence—she has not the right to be protected by British warships. Not only so, but they do not even signal. In the case of the "Molton" I was told by the First Lord that they made no signal, and we have the shameful spectacle of ships engaged in a humanitarian enterprise not only not protected from attack on the high seas but led away and captured by rebels or pirates—because the attacking ships have no belligerent status—under the eyes of the British Fleet.
That is the situation. It is not a question of Azana versus Franco. It is a question of sheer humanity. These refugees who are being evacuated may be Basques or they may belong to some other party, but they are being evacuated on grounds of humanity. There is no question of contraband. These ships are acting under charter for the sole purpose of evacuating these people. The First Lord made play with the fact that shots

were fired across their bows. I do not know but perhaps some hon. Members who are sailors can tell me whether, at seven miles, it is an absolute certainty. that you are going to fire across the bows of a ship or whether, as in the case of the last ship the shots go through the rigging. In those circumstances the First Lord withholds protection and permits British ships to be captured and carried away on the high seas. At first, I thought there must be some mistake about this, and I persisted in my Supplementary Questions upon it; but now it appears to be the accepted policy of the Admiralty that these things should happen. I wish to hear the First Lord's reply, and I do not wish to indulge in rhetoric, though some of us feel very deeply about this matter. The First Lord is a travelled man. I wonder whether he has ever been to the stockyards of Chicago. There—within the territorial limits—he will see those dreadful areas of lime-washed avenues. At the entrances are men engaged in non-intervention. Their task is to see that none of the terrified creatures escape from the shambles.

11.17 p.m.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have never been to the stockyards of Chicago, and if I were in Chicago I should certainly avoid such an unpleasant visit. Nor do I think anybody who attempted to interfere with the business going on there, unpleasant as it may be, and revolting as its appearance may be to those who go out of their way to study it, would be justified in so interfering. I think that part of the misapprehension and misunderstanding which has existed between the two sides of the House since this unfortunate business in Spain has been going on, arises from the fact that hon. Members opposite have refused to see the difference between a rebellion, a riot or a revolution and a civil war. It is very difficult to say where one stops and the other begins. It is very difficult in this country to say when spring ends and summer begins, but they are two different things. By every definition of civil war known to me, what is going on in Spain at the present time is civil war.
The position of a foreign Power in regard to a civil war is far more difficult than it is with regard to an international


war, because there are far fewer precedents and rules to go upon and, equally a division of opinion may arise in neutral countries as to which side is in the right and which is in the wrong. His Majesty's Government have, from the first, as far as this civil war in Spain is concerned, based themselves upon the principle of neutrality, or non-intervention. For myself, I see very little difference between the two words, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) condemned non-intervention in round terms, but insisted on neutrality as one alternative to it. However, I have not had the advantage of any information from him or anybody else as to the difference between the two terms. It is very difficult to apply this principle of neutrality or non-intervention. I am not going into the rights or wrongs of the dispute. It is not my business in my position to do so and it does not arise out of anything which the right hon. Gentleman has said. We are agreed, so far as this discussion is concerned, that we are trying to follow a policy of non-intervention or neutrality. The problem is, how are you to apply this principle to the very difficult situation now existing on the north coast of Spain? There you have certain towns in the possession of one side which are being attacked, beleagured, and besieged by another. We wish to maintain, so far as possible, the attitude in which we shall be held to assist militarily neither one side nor the other. It is difficult to draw the line between humanitarianism and military assistance. It is very easy, on the other hand, to make high-sounding speeches about the suffering that is going on in Spain, but everybody who studies the problem knows that it is not inflicted principally upon combatants but nearly always more on non-combatants, on the women and children. It is very easy to say that humanitarianism demands that we should feed women and children who are suffering, but when a town is beleagured, besieged, help given to a beleaguered garrison either in the way of importing food or in the way of diminishing the demand for food—and that is taking away the women and children—is military assistance.
Let us beware of incurring the accusation, that is too often thrown at this country, of cant and humbug. When we say

that it is a monstrous thing to starve women and children, we must remember, and let the right hon. Gentleman, who played a noble part in the late War for 41 years, remember, that we did everything in our power to starve the women and children of Germany, and if we had then been approached by the United States with a demand that we should allow food to go in to the population, on the ground of humanitarianism should we have refused so reasonable a request? Let the right hon. Gentleman put that question to himself.
What is the role of the British Navy? We have taken a very definite line from the beginning of this controversy. We have said that we will protect British ships, ships flying the British flag, on the high seas. We have refused to recognise the right of any belligerents. We have recognised no belligerents. We have refused to recognise the right either of the Spanish Government or of the insurgent party to interfere with ships flying the British flag on the high seas, but we must draw the line somewhere, and we have drawn the line at territorial waters. From the point of view of sea power, it is very important that that line should be definite and understood, and that there should be no infringement of the principle which regards territorial waters as part of the country to which they belong. We say that, when ships go inside territorial waters, they forfeit the right to protection, in the same way that a private citizen, if he goes into Spain, does not expect, when he knows that there is a civil war being carried on, to be protected by the British Army.
Unfortunately, tragically, many British subjects have lost their lives in this war. In normal circumstances, if a British subject were shot in Spain. we should ask what had happened to him, but in certain circumstances we know that people who have gone into Spain and have volunteered to take part in the civil war, have done so on their own risk, in support of their own principles, and knowing full well that they have forfeited the right to expect the great influence of the British Empire to be exercised on their behalf.
Is there a great difference between a British subject who, because of his ideals, principles and beliefs, has gone into Spain and fought on one side or another,


is there a great difference between those who have done that expecting no protection, and British ships which are chartered by the Basque Government and are paid large sums of money in order to go in and assist the Spanish Government in the war they are carrying on against the insurgents?
Make no doubt about it, these ships, every one of them, are performing invaluable services to the Spanish Government. They are volunteers as much as any of those volunteers from Italy, Germany, Great Britain and France who are alleged to be fighting on either side. They are taking part in the war, and can they really expect that the British Navy will see them safe to harbour? If the British Navy agreed to do that, how could we know that their demands would end there? How could we know that they would not say, "We have arrived at harbour. We are being shelled from outside territorial waters while we are disembarking our cargo. Should that be interfered with? Are we not on the foreshore? In this country the foreshore belongs to nobody. It is no man's land, and we are entitled to protection of the British Navy while we are on the foreshore of Spain." Where is it to end? Are we to send an Army corps with them to see that their cargo reaches its destination?
I cannot see any logic or any principle in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He says that it is an unpleasant position and has emphasised and drawn all the rhetorical and sentimental value he can out of the unpleasant position in which His Majesty's ships are put by being compelled to witness the capture of British ships in territorial waters. What is the alternative? What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest? That has always been the trouble with the Opposition on this subject. There can be no alternative that he can suggest—

Mr. Benn: Common humanity.

Mr. Cooper: That is the most useless suggestion I have ever heard. Common humanity in this case would mean firing on the Spanish ship, entering into the war, and risking the lives of British sailors for a cause which not one man in this country off those benches thinks worth

fighting for. "Saving women and children" blurts the right hon. Member. The same demand might have been put up by some enthusiastic pro-German in the United States in the War, insisting on the United States carrying supplies to Germany, when we were blockading that country, and saving the women and children.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes.

Mr. Cooper: The right hon. Member really wants us to enter into the war in Spain, to risk the lives of British sailors, for the cause of the Spanish Government, in order to help them to rid the beleaguered cities of some of the mouths which are waiting to be fed. It is easy to make demands on sentiment. It is so easy, when we know, as we all do, how fearful the sufferings are which are now being inflicted on the unhappy population of Spain; sufferings which are equally great upon both sides; sufferings which have been felt as much by those who are opposed to the Spanish Government as by those who are at present supporting it. It is easy to say to us "Why should not we do anything to help?" The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we cannot do anything to help them, we cannot adopt any different policy to that which we are adopting without engaging in a small form of war. And if we started what would be the reaction of the other countries? What would they say? I would remind him also, when he talks about English merchant ships, from purely humanitarian motives, running the blockade—these British ships which are being enormously paid by the Basque Government—that not a single merchantman has suffered a single casualty; whereas already the British Navy has suffered. British sailors have been killed in this ugly business. So long as I am in control of the Admiralty I am determined that not another British sailor shall fall in a cause that is not worth fighting for.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.